DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/27/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lopatin US 20220146484.
As to claim 13, Lopatin teaches “A method for determining and/or monitoring a predeterminable fill level of a medium in a containment (Abstract; [0025]) using a sensor having a sensor unit with a mechanically oscillatable unit in the form of an oscillatory fork (Figure 2B) and at least one piezoelectric element ([0001]; Figure 2B, 11a), the method comprising: exciting the sensor unit with an excitation signal such that mechanical oscillations are executed ([0038]); receiving the mechanical oscillations of the sensor unit and converting the received mechanical oscillations into a first received signal ([0038]; Figure 2B shows the first signal being labeled as E); transmitting a transmitted signal from the sensor unit and receiving a second received signal by the sensor unit (Figure 2B shows the second signal being labeled as S; [0039]); ascertaining information concerning the predeterminable fill level of medium in the containment based on the first received signal ([0026]; [0040]); and ascertaining information concerning a state of the sensor unit based on the second received signal ([0026]; [0040]).”
As to claim 14, Lopatin teaches “wherein the excitation signal and/or the transmitted signal are/ is an electrical signal having at least one predeterminable frequency ([0026]).”
As to claim 15, Lopatin teaches “wherein the transmitted signal is a pulsed signal ([0039]),”
As to claim 18, Lopatin teaches “ascertaining an amplitude of the second received signal ([0026]).”
As to claim 19, Lopatin teaches “ascertaining a frequency of the first received signal ([0026]).”
As to claim 23, Lopatin teaches “wherein the excitation signal and the transmitted signal are periodically, alternately produced ([0039] teaches that the signals can be pulsed, therefore the structure in Lopatin can also produce signals periodically. This claim is functional language and since the prior art and claimed invention share same the structure, it can behave in the same manner).”
As to claim 24, Lopatin teaches “wherein the transmitted signal is produced at predeterminable points in time ([0039] teaches that the signals can be pulsed, therefore the structure in Lopatin can also produce signals periodically. This claim is functional language and since the prior art and claimed invention share the structure, it can behave in the same manner).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin US 20220146484 in view of Brengartner US 20120279283.
As to claim 16, Lopatin does not explicitly teach a variable frequency.
Brengartner teaches “wherein the transmitted signal is a signal of variable frequency using frequencies within a predeterminable frequency interval (Abstract; [0008]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Brengartner with Lopatin. Using a range of frequencies is known because using a range typically increases accuracy by overcoming noise.
Claim(s) 17, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin US 20220146484 in view of Grover US 20180010322.
As to claim 17, Lopatin does not explicitly teach a blockage in the region of the sensor.
Grover teaches “wherein the information with reference to state of the sensor unit is information concerning a blockage in the region of the sensor unit ([0096]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to combine the teachings of Grover with Lopatin. The received frequency spectra can aid in determining blockages or sediment buildup on sensors since this would dampen the oscillations. This indicates a fault in the sensor and this knowledge aids the user to determining when to address the issue.
As to claim 20, Grover teaches “determining that a blockage is present in a region of the sensor unit when the frequency of the first received signal exceeds or subceeds a predeterminable frequency limit value and the amplitude of the second received signal subceeds a predeterminable amplitude limit value ([0096] teaches the attenuation of signals when a blockage is present. This reads on the claim language in that a received signal of lower energy or lack of signal is below a predetermined limit, indicating the blockage).”
As to claim 21, Lopatin teaches “determining that a maximum fill level has been reached when the predeterminable limit level is a maximum fill level of medium in the containment and the amplitude of the second received signal exceeds a predeterminable limit value ([0026] teaches that the fill level can be determined by various variables such as frequency. At a maximum level, the frequency will remain constant since the level will not change. The same holds true to a minimum fill level as well).”
As to claim 22, Lopatin teaches “determining that the minimum fill level has been reached when the predeterminable limit level is a minimum fill level of medium in the containment and the amplitude of the second received signal subceeds a predeterminable limit value ([0026] teaches that the fill level can be determined by various variables such as frequency. At a maximum level, the frequency will remain constant since the level will not change. The same holds true to a minimum fill level as well).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863