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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larsson (WO 2020/0160777; IDS citation).
Regarding claim 8, Larsson discloses a fill level measuring device (Figures 1-3) for determining a fill level of a fill substance in a container, comprising:
a housing (210),
a transmitting/receiving unit (213) arranged in the housing and designed to produce transmitted radar signals (page 3, lines 24-31) and, based on corresponding received signals, to determine the fill level (page 1, lines 3-4);
an antenna (5) for transmitting transmitted radar signals to the fill substance and/or for receiving received signals after reflection on a surface of the fill substance; and
a measuring device neck (37) arranged between the antenna and the housing and containing, extending in the measuring device neck, a hollow conductor (31) via which signals are led between the transmitting/receiving unit and the antenna and a thermal coupling element (43) which couples the hollow conductor thermally with the measuring device neck (page 10, lines 4-12).
Regarding claim 9, Larsson shows the thermal coupling element (43) is arranged at an end region of the hollow conductor (31), or of the housing-neck, facing toward the transmitting/receiving unit (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Larsson discloses the thermal coupling element has a thermal resistance that amounts to a maximum of 15 Kelvin/Watt (page 11, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 13, Larsson discloses the transmitting/receiving unit produces radar signals with a frequency of at least 60 GHz, and processes corresponding received signals (page 3, lines 24-31).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Feisst (US 2020/0088562).
Larsson does not list thermal resistance specification for each component, and therefore does not disclose the thermal resistance of the thermal coupling element and the housing when summed together, amounts at most to a fifth of a thermal resistance of the transmitting/receiving unit toward the housing. However as disclosed by Feisst, in the art of fill level measuring radar, it was a well known design parameter to thermally insulate transceiver electronics adequately ([0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design the device of Larsson to achieve the claimed ratio (e.g. by material selection and thermal insulation for the transceiver as noted by Feisst) to achieve the desired result of properly functioning electronics for a given environment with predictable results. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson in view of Feisst as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stobart et al. (US 2019/0033117).
Larsson does not specify any particular thermal resistance values associated with the housing. However, as with Feisst, Stobart ([0034]) demonstrates in the art of fill level measuring radar, it was a well-known design parameter to ensure the transceiver operates at acceptable temperatures. Stobart discloses the use of a heat sink (i.e. low thermal resistance) for the transceiver board ([0034]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design the device of Larsson to achieve a thermal resistance amounting to 5 K/W maximum for the housing (e.g. by heat sink as suggested by Stobart) to achieve the desired result of properly functioning transceiver for a given environment with predictable results. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsson as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gravel et al. (5,955,684).
Larsson does not disclose the thermal coupling element and the measuring device neck comprise corresponding screw threads via which the hollow conductor is securable in the measuring device neck. Rather, Larsson discloses securing the coupling element by spring loading (page 5, lines 6-9). Gravel demonstrates securing various elements of a radar fill measuring device (Figure 2) by screw thread, including internal components of a neck (e.g. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use screw threading to replace spring loading in the device of Larsson with a reasonable expectation of success in order enhance security and avoid potential spring fatigue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art concerns thermal management for fill level radar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights