Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission filed 06/25/2026 includes changes to the claims, remarks and arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered. Claims 13, 15-16, 18-22, 25 & 27-28 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 112(b) rejection:
Applicant has amended Claim 15 to remove the optional term “preferably”. The 112(b) rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejection:
Applicant has amended Claim 13 to roll- up the alternative limitation “subregion wall thickness that is greater than the wall thickness” over the examined limitation “subregion wall thickness that is smaller than the wall thickness”. The added limitation requires additional search and consideration.
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments with regard to Claims 13, 15-16, 18-22 & 25 have been considered in light of the previous references and new claims 27-28 are entered and considered. The arguments and amended claims do not overcome the prior art at the time of the filing of the invention. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new reference of Getman in view of the previous reference of Mueller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13, 15-16, 18-22 & 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getman (US 6138507: “Getman”) in view of Mueller (US 20060156835: “Mueller”).
Claim 13. Getman discloses a decoupling unit (Fig.1) for a device (Fig.1: 1) for determining and/or monitoring at least one process variable of a medium [Col. 1 lines 7-8: fill level of a fill substance], the device (1) comprising a sensor unit (14, 23 & 24) including a mechanically vibratable unit (14) and a drive/receiving unit (24)[Col. 4 lines 30-40: [Col. 4 lines 30-40: The piezoelectric elements, that is to say the transmitters 23 and the receiver 24, are in each case polarized parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stack. If an AC voltage is present on the transmission signal line 5, then the transmitters 23 execute thickness oscillations] which is configured to excite the vibratable unit (14) to mechanically vibrate according to an electrical excitation signal [Col. 4 lines 30-40]: to receive the resulting mechanical vibrations of the vibratable unit (14) and to convert the mechanical vibrations into an electrical reception signal [Col. 1; lines 18-30: a receiver (24),
which picks up the mechanical oscillations of the oscillating structure (1) and converts them into an electrical reception signal (E)], the decoupling unit (Fig.1: 1) comprising: a tubular body (Fig.1: 11 & 13) including a wall (11) having a wall thickness [Fig. 1: 11 housing extended thickness over tread 13], wherein a first end region (13) of the tubular body (11 & 13) is configured to connect to the sensor unit (14, 23 & 24), and wherein the wall thickness of the tubular body (Figs.1: 11 & 13) is variable groove (Fig. 1: 11 housing has an extension greater than the region 13) in along a longitudinal axis (L) of the tubular body (Fig.1: 11 & 13) [Col .3 lines 47-57] the tubular body, in at least one subregion (11) defined along the longitudinal axis, has a subregion wall thickness (11) that is greater than the wall thickness of the wall of the tubular body (13) outside the subregion (11). Getman does not explicitly disclose:
a second end region of the tubular body is to connect to a housing of an electronics system of the device.
Mueller teaches a second end region (5) of the tubular body (Fig.1: 3, 5 & 7) is configured to connect to a housing (7) of an electronics system (19 & 21) of the device (1)[0045].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mueller’s second end connection to an electronic housing with Getman’s sensor housing because the placement of the supporting and processing electronics improves device reliability by distal placement from a damaging fluid and dynamic environment.
Claims 15. Dependent on the decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses the subregion (Fig. 1: 11) wall thickness is greater (11 is greater than 13). Getman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the subregion wall thickness is smaller at least by a factor of two than the wall thickness outside the subregion.
The change of size of the groove in the tubular body of the subregion is a matter of design choice. Since the courts have held the modification would have involved mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) [See additional rulings in MPEP 2144.04 IV(a)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Getman’s, as modified, groove diameters of between half and a fifth of the width of the tubular body width because the groove depth dissipates heat by providing an increase of the surface area for heat convection.
Claim 16. Dependent on the decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses a distance (11 larger diameter) of the at least one subregion (11) from the first end region (12) parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body (13) is more than a diameter of the tubular body (13). Getman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the subregion wall thickness is greater, at least by a factor of 5 than the wall thickness outside the subregion.
The change of size of the groove in the tubular body of the subregion is a matter of design choice. Since the courts have held the modification would have involved mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) [See additional rulings in MPEP 2144.04 IV(a)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Getman’s, as modified, groove diameters of between half and a fifth of the width of the tubular body width because the groove depth dissipates heat by providing an increase of the surface area for heat convection.
Claim 18. Dependent on the decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses the tubular body (Fig.1: 11 & 13), in the at least one subregion (Fig. 1: 11), has an inner diameter perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (L) of the tubular body (Fig.1: 11 & 13), which inner diameter is greater (Fig. 1 depicts expanded region at 11 over the fastener area 13) than an inner diameter of the tubular body (11 &13) outside the subregion (11).
Claim 19. Dependent on the decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses a distance (11 larger diameter) of the at least one subregion (11) from the first end region (12) parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body (13) is more than a diameter of the tubular body (13). Getman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
a distance of the at least one subregion from the first end region parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body, is at least half a diameter of the tubular body
The change of size of the length of the tubular body of the subregion is a matter of design choice. Since the courts have held the modification would have involved mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) [See additional rulings in MPEP 2144.04 IV(a)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Getman’s, as modified, length range of between twice and five times the diameter in confined of the tubular body to modify the subregion length because the extended length range provides an increased area to dissipate heat while maintaining a size efficient length for space confined installation.
Claim 20. Dependent on the decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses a distance (11 larger diameter) of the at least one subregion (11) from the first end region (12) parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body (13) is more than a diameter of the tubular body (13). Getman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
a distance of the at least one subregion from the first end region parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body is not more than four times a diameter of the tubular body.
The change of size of the length of the tubular body of the subregion is a matter of design choice. Since the courts have held the modification would have involved mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) [See additional rulings in MPEP 2144.04 IV(a)].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Getman’s, as modified, length range of between twice and five times the diameter in confined of the tubular body to modify the subregion length because the extended length range provides an increased area to dissipate heat while maintaining a size efficient length for space confined installation.
Claim 21. Dependent on the decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses A device (1) for determining and/or monitoring at least one process variable of a medium [Col. 1 lines 58-67: indicates that the mechanical oscillatory structure is covered by a charge material], the device (1) comprising: a sensor unit (12, 23 & 24) comprising: a mechanically vibratable unit (14); and a drive/receiving unit (23 & 24) configured to excite the vibratable unit (14) to mechanically vibrate according to an electrical excitation signal [Col. 4 lines 30-40: The piezoelectric elements, that is to say the transmitters 23 and the receiver 24, are in each case polarized parallel to the longitudinal axis of the stack. If an AC voltage is present on the transmission signal line 5, then the transmitters 23 execute thickness oscillations], to receive the mechanical vibrations of the vibratable unit, and to convert the mechanical vibrations into an electrical first reception signal [Col. 1; lines 18-30: a receiver (24), which picks up the mechanical oscillations of the oscillating structure (1) and converts them into an electrical reception signal (E)]; an electronics system (9)[Col. 5 lines 25-35] configured to determine the at least one process variable based on the first reception signal; and the decoupling unit [Col. 1 lines 58-67: indicates that the mechanical oscillatory structure is covered by a charge material]. according to claim 13.
Claim 22. Dependent on the device according to claim 21. Getman further discloses the decoupling unit (Fig.1: 11 & 13) is connected to the sensor unit (12, 23 & 24) at one end. Getman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the decoupling unit is connected to the electronics system at an opposing end
Mueller teaches the decoupling unit (Fig.1: 11 & 13) is connected to the sensor unit (9, 15 & 17 below connection 11) at one end Mueller further discloses the decoupling unit (Fig.1: 3, 5, 7 & 25) is connected to the sensor unit (9, 15 & 17 below connection 11) at one end and to the electronics system (19 & 21 above divider 23) at an opposing end (Fig.1: sensors at the bottom and electronics at the top).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mueller’s second end connection to an electronic housing with Getman’s sensor housing because the placement of the supporting and processing electronics improves device reliability by distal placement from a damaging fluid and dynamic environment.
Claim 27. Dependent on the device decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses the tubular body (11 & 13), in the at least one subregion (11), has an outer diameter perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tubular body, which outer diameter (11) is greater than an outer diameter of the tubular body (11 & 13) outside the subregion (13).
Claim 28. Dependent on the device decoupling unit according to claim 13. Getman further discloses the subregion wall thickness (11) is greater than the wall thickness of the wall of the tubular body (13) outside the subregion such that a rigidity of the tubular body (11 & 13) varies along the longitudinal axis (Fig.1: section indicated by designator 11 is wider in diameter than the region designated as 13).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getman in view of Mueller in further view of Dreyer (US 20140352427: “Dreyer”).
Claim 25. Dependent on the device according to claim 21. Getman further discloses the vibratable unit (14) is a vibrating fork (14) [Col 4 lines 40-45: The oscillating bars 14 are fixedly connected to the diaphragm 12 at their ends. Flexural vibrations of the diaphragm 12 consequently cause the oscillating bars 14 to oscillate perpendicularly to their longitudinal axis] including a first and a second vibrating element (23) [Col. 4 lines 18-24: The two piezoelectric elements facing the diaphragm operate as transmitters 23 and the piezoelectric element remote from the diaphragm serves as a receiver 24., wherein the drive/receiving unit (23 & 24) comprises at least one piezoelectric element [Col. 4 lines 18-24] wherein the device (23 & 24) is configured to: emit a transmission signal and receive a second reception signal [Col. 1 lines 14-30]; and determine the at least one process variable using the first and/or second reception signal [Col. 1 lines 58-67: indicates that the mechanical oscillatory structure is covered by a charge material]. Getman, as modified, does not explicitly disclose:
the at least one piezoelectric element is at least partially disposed in one of two vibrating elements of the vibrating fork, and wherein in each case one piezoelectric element of the at least one piezoelectric element is disposed in each vibrating element of the vibrating fork
Dreyer teaches an apparatus for determining and/or monitoring at least one process variable of a medium in a container and comprises an oscillatable unit for introduction into the container [Abstract]. Dreyer further teaches the at least one piezoelectric element (Fig. 2: 41 & 42) is
at least partially disposed in one of two vibrating elements (21 & 22) of the vibrating fork
(21 & 22), and wherein in each case one piezoelectric element (21 & 22) of the at least one
piezoelectric element (21 & 22) is disposed in each vibrating element (21 & 22) of the
vibrating fork (21 & 22) [0038: Both hollow spaces 31, 32 are accessible from the base 23, so
that a first piezoelectric unit 41 is introducible into the first hollow space 31 and a second
piezoelectric unit 42 is introducible into the second hollow space 32. The two hollow spaces 31,
32 are dimensioned in such a manner that the piezoelectric units 41, 42 are arranged at least
sectionally in the rod-shaped elements 21, 22 and sectionally in the base 23. The piezoelectric
units 41, 42 can, however, also be arranged completely in the rod-shaped elements 21, 22].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dreyer's arrangement of a pair of piezoelectric devices at least partially within each vibrating element to directly drive Mueller's vibrating elements because direct driving of the vibration elements provides a reliable delivery of a vibration signal in a simplified and cost-efficient design [Dreyer 0004-0005].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Monica S Young whose telephone number is (303)297-4785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-05:30 MST. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-273-2375. 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.
/MONICA S YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights