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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 131 690.1, filed on 12/01/2021 and parent Application No. PCT/EP2022/082659, filed on 11/21/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the evaluation unit is designed to signal the defined event" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 recites “to signal a failure state of the fill level measuring device or a defined event” in line 7 of the claim, but claim 29 does not depend on claim 22. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the defined event” in claim 29.
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)(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.
(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) 19-33 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Westerling et al. (US 20040080324 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Westerling discloses
A fill-level measuring device for determining a fill level of a fill substance in a container (see pg. 1, paragraph 0001, “The present invention relates to a level gauging system for measuring the level of a surface of a product stored in a tank by use of a radar”), comprising:
a signal production unit (see Fig. 3, FMCW radar system) that is designed:
to produce a first transmitted radar signal within a first frequency band (see pg. 1, paragraph 0001, “said radar is adapted to transmit and receive said microwaves on at least two different microwave frequency bands”), and
to produce a second transmitted radar signal within a second frequency band that does not overlap with the first frequency band (see pg. 1, paragraph 0001, “said radar is adapted to transmit and receive said microwaves on at least two different microwave frequency bands”);
an antenna arrangement via which the first transmitted radar signal and the second transmitted radar signal are transmittable to the fill substance, and via which a corresponding first received signal and a second received signal are receivable after reflection on the fill substance surface (see Fig. 1, radar 3 with antenna 5 and surface product level 6; Fig. 3, transmitting antenna 39 and receiving antenna 40); and
an evaluation unit (see pg. 5, paragraph 0033, “In the signal analyzer 13 there is also an evaluation unit, for calculation of the product surface level 6 in a conventional way.”), which is designed:
to determine a first fill level value based on the first received signal (see pg. 5, paragraph 0033, “The different echo spectra received from the at least two different frequency bands are analysed in this evaluation unit for determining the level of the surface in the tank”), and
to determine a second fill level value based on the second received signal (see pg. 5, paragraph 0033, “The different echo spectra received from the at least two different frequency bands are analysed in this evaluation unit for determining the level of the surface in the tank”).
Regarding claim 20, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 19, wherein the signal production unit is further designed to produce the first transmitted radar signal and the second transmitted radar signal in such a manner:
that the second frequency band has a center frequency that differs from the center frequency of the first frequency band by at least a factor of 2 (see Abstract, “The ratio between the center frequencies of the two widely separated frequency bands can be quantified as at least greater than 1.5:1 or preferably greater than 2:1”), and/or
that the first frequency band and the second frequency band each has a bandwidth that is at most a half of its center frequency.
Regarding claim 21, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 19, wherein the signal production unit is further designed to produce a third transmitted radar signal within a third frequency band that does not overlap with the first frequency band and the second frequency band, and wherein the signal production unit is further designed to determine a third fill level value based on a corresponding third received signal (see pg. 5, paragraph 0035, “The generation of microwaves may be arranged for 2 frequency bands or for any number n of frequency bands”; pg. 4, paragraph 0022, “The echo spectrum is converted to a number of logic variables from which it is deduced which of the frequency bands that are likely to give the best measured level value or if a weighted average of two or more frequency bands will give the most reliable level value”).
Regarding claim 22, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 21, wherein the evaluation unit is designed:
to test the first fill level value with the second fill level value and/or the third fill level value for agreement (see pg. 4, paragraph 0022, “The signals received from the different frequency bands are compared and also stored over a certain time to make a good estimation of the information.”; pg. 2, paragraph 0018, “One further advantage with a radar level gauge according to the invention aspect is that a signal received from the radar can be made more advanced and analyzed by means of a comparison of different spectra. Judgements of which echo from the surface of the product in the tank that is the most accurate and which echoes that may be disregarded, as disturbance echoes are made available by the present invention”) and
to output as the fill level one of the fill level values when such agrees within a defined tolerance range with at least one of the other fill level values, and/or
to signal a failure state of the fill level measuring device or a defined event in the container when not all fill level values agree within the defined tolerance range, or when no fill level value is determinable based on one of the received signals.
Regarding claim 23, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 22, wherein the evaluation unit is designed to output as the fill level an equally or unequally weighted average value of at least two of the first, second, and third fill level values (see pg. 4, paragraph 0022, “The echo spectrum is converted to a number of logic variables from which it is deduced which of the frequency bands that are likely to give the best measured level value or if a weighted average of two or more frequency bands will give the most reliable level value.”; pg. 7, claim 24, “analyzing in a signal analyzer a first echo spectrum generated and based on the signal transmitted and received on the first frequency band, analyzing at least a second echo spectrum generated and based on the signal transmitted and received on the at least second frequency band and in dependence of the analysis performed on the microwave spectra automatically setting the radar to work on all of said frequency bands for determining the level based on an average of the calculation of the level performed for each of said frequency bands.”).
Regarding claim 24, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 21, wherein the evaluation unit is designed, based on the first received signal, the second received signal, and/or the third received signal, to create a masking curve for an, in each case, other frequency band (see pg. 2, paragraph 0018, “Judgements of which echo from the surface of the product in the tank that is the most accurate and which echoes that may be disregarded, as disturbance echoes are made available by the present invention.”; pg. 4, paragraph 0022, “For both (or more) frequency bands used in the present invention an echo spectrum is created and a number of suspected echoes are created as memory cells where echo amplitude, echo amplitude variation, calculated distance and an estimated surface velocity are stored. The echo amplitude variation is a typical characteristic for a turbulent surface and so is a possible surface level velocity (equal to a persisting change of the distance to the surface). Depending on the conditions in the tank these parameters are different and the logic process in the unit will come to different conclusions. The echo spectrum is converted to a number of logic variables from which it is deduced which of the frequency bands that are likely to give the best measured level value or if a weighted average of two or more frequency bands will give the most reliable level value”).
Regarding claim 25, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 19, wherein the fill-level measuring device is designed to transmit both the first transmitted radar signal and the second transmitted radar signal in a plurality of measuring cycles (see pg. 6, paragraphs 0043-0044, device can have oscillator or pulse radar), wherein the evaluation unit ascertains based on corresponding received signals per frequency band, in each case, at least one defined characteristic variable (see pg. 4, paragraph 0022, echo amplitude variation as a characteristic and additional signal parameters).
Regarding claim 26, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the at least one defined characteristic variable is an amplitude of a signal maximum, a change or standard deviation of its amplitude, a noise level, and/or a number of signal maxima (see pg. 4, paragraph 0022, “For both (or more) frequency bands used in the present invention an echo spectrum is created and a number of suspected echoes are created as memory cells where echo amplitude, echo amplitude variation, calculated distance and an estimated surface velocity are stored”).
Regarding claim 27, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 25, wherein the evaluation unit is further designed to compare the at least one defined characteristic variable of each frequency band to one another (see pg. 2, paragraph 0017, “after the results of the measurements performed at different frequency bands may be compared and analysed for a determination of the most accurate value of the level of the surface of the product inside the tank.”).
Regarding claim 28, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 27, wherein the signal production unit following the plurality of measuring cycles produces either the first transmitted radar signal or the second transmitted radar signal as a function of the characteristic variables comparison (see pg. 2, paragraph 0017, “the results of the measurements performed at different frequency bands may be compared”), and wherein the evaluation unit in a following measuring cycles ascertains fill level value based either on the first received signal or on the second received signal (see pg. 5, paragraph 0033, fill level is determined from received signals).
Regarding claim 29, Westerling further discloses
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 28, wherein the evaluation unit is designed to signal the defined event in the container as a function of characteristic variable ascertained in each case or as a function of the comparison (see pg. 2, paragraph 0019, “Another important detail is that the frequency band separation must be sufficient to give a clear difference in function when degradations such as foaming, dirt on the antenna etc. occur. The frequency bands chosen can, for example, have diverting functionality, such as one high-penetration frequency band and one narrow beam frequency band as described herein”; pg. 3, 2-way attenuation in dB vs thickness graph; pg. 2, paragraph 0020, “To illustrate the statements above the two-way attenuation is given below as a function of the thickness of a wet dirt layer on the antenna or the accumulated water content in a layer of foam. The four curves are from top to bottom 6, 10, 25 and 77 GHz respectively. The influence on attenuation by foam and wet dirt as a function of frequency is highly non-linear, where it can be seen from the figure, that for instance a jump from 6 GHz to 10 GHz makes a similar attenuation difference as a jump from 10 GHz to 25 GHz.”; see pg. 4, paragraph 0022, “Within each frequency band the same function as in the classical frequency agility process can be performed but much more important is the possibility created by the present invention to avoid signals with very low amplitude if a high frequency radar level gauge should be used under foamy conditions or to avoid disturbances from tank structures when non foamy liquids with low reflectivity are measured.”).
Regarding claim 30, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 21, wherein the fill-level measuring device is configurable manually such that the signal production unit produces either the first transmitted radar signal, the second transmitted radar signal, or the third transmitted radar signal, wherein the evaluation unit determines a fill level value based on the corresponding received signal (see pg. 2, paragraph 0017, “One advantage with the level gauge according to the invention is that it is possible to measure the surface level of a product by use of switching between different frequencies bands”).
Regarding claim 31, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 19, wherein the antenna arrangement includes a shared primary radiator for all radar signals and all frequency bands (see Fig. 2, RF module 12; pg. 4, paragraph 0033, “The RF module 12 is generating the microwave signal for transmitting and receiving the microwaves into and from the tank as described”).
Regarding claim 32, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in 21,
wherein the antenna arrangement includes a first primary radiator, and the first primary radiator is embodied to transmit the first transmitted radar signal and to receive the first received signal,
wherein the antenna arrangement further includes a second primary radiator, and the second primary radiator is embodied to transmit the second transmitted signal and to receive the second received signal (see Fig. 6, multiple patch antennas; pg. 5, paragraph 0040, “Still one more type of antennas that can be used for the purpose are patch array antennas for multiple bands. An antenna of this type can be designed in such a way that two frequency bands with two different center frequencies may be achieved, for instance by use of dual patches.”).
Regarding claim 33, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 32,
wherein the antenna arrangement further includes a third primary radiator, and the third primary radiator is embodied to transmit the third transmitted signal and to received the third received signal (see Fig. 6, multiple patch antennas; pg. 5, paragraph 0040, “Still one more type of antennas that can be used for the purpose are patch array antennas for multiple bands. An antenna of this type can be designed in such a way that two frequency bands with two different center frequencies may be achieved, for instance by use of dual patches.”).
Regarding claim 37, Westerling further discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 21, wherein the antenna arrangement is designed to transmit the first transmitted radar signal, the second transmitted radar signal, and/or the third transmitted radar signal with a defined polarization (see pg. 5, paragraph 0037, “This horn can be made for linear polarization, i.e. with one or two ridges 43 (FIG. 4b) or for two linear polarizations, 4 ridges 43 as shown in FIG. 4c, in order to create circular polarization”).
Regarding claim 38, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 19 are applied. Westerling further discloses
A method for operating a fill-level measuring device (see pg. 7, claim 22, A method for measuring the level of the surface of a product”), comprising:
providing the fill-level measuring device (see Fig. 1, measuring device 3), including:
transmitting sequentially alternately the first transmitted radar signal and the second transmitted radar signal (see pg. 6, paragraph 0042, “A pulsed radar may be realized for achieving a corresponding function by substituting the VCO and the Phase Locked Loop (PLL) 23 with an oscillator with a fixed frequency and pulse circuit.”; Fig. 3, pg. 6, Table 1, Fig. 3 circuit components; pg. 6, paragraph 0043, “A further possibility for a solution is to use an oscillator covering the complete, desired, frequency band and to combine this with the use of a band stop filter, which is filtering away all the portions of the bands that are not wanted or allowed for use. Still another alternative is to use a pulse generator serving two different oscillators working on the desired frequencies.”); and
alternately receiving a first received signal and a second received signal (see Fig. 5; pg. 6, paragraph 0044, “Both for pulsed system, FMCW systems and other systems, the spectrum look alike as an average, but depending on the arrangement, the signal may appear within the two frequency bands alternatively, simultaneously or with another time distribution”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerling et al. (US 20040080324 A1) in view of Blodt (US 20150253177 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Blodt discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 32, wherein the antenna arrangement is designed such that a radiation angle of a radar signal is greater the lower the frequency band (see pg. 2, paragraph 0023, “In a first variant of the invention, the antenna is an antenna, especially a horn-, rod- or reflector antenna, which has a radiation characteristic, which includes a main lobe pointing in a main transmission direction and having an aperture angle rising with decreasing center frequency of the transmission signals”; Figs. 1, 2, and 4, lower frequency bands have a greater radiation angle).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention of Westerling. Both Westerling and Blodt are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose container fill level measuring devices that use multiple signals with different center frequencies. Westerling discloses the limitations of claim 32; however, Westerling fails to disclose a radiation angle of the signal increasing as the frequency band decreases. This feature is disclosed by Blodt where the radiation angle increases as the frequency band decreases. The combination of Westerling and Blodt would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve short distance performance as higher radiation angles give a broader range which is better for short distances.
Regarding claim 35, Blodt discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 32, wherein the antenna arrangement is designed such that the radar signals are transmitted with equal radiation angle (see Fig. 8, lens 43 coupled with antenna 29; pg. 6, paragraph 0112, “in the case of the individual measurings at equal transmission power of the antenna 7, the different radiation density sent per solid angle is taken into consideration. If, in the case of the individual measurings, different transmission powers are applied, then this is likewise to be taken into consideration by corresponding normalization of the measurement curves A.sub.n(t).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention of Westerling. Westerling discloses the limitations of claim 32; however, Westerling fails to disclose all the signals being transmitted with equal radiation angle. This feature is disclosed by Blodt where a lens may alter the focus of transmitted signals from an antenna, and the radiation density and transmission power of the signals is taken into account. The combination of Westerling and Blodt would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to transmit all signals at the same radiation angle for a sanity check that the measurements are reasonable.
Regarding claim 36, Blodt discloses
The fill-level measuring device as claimed in claim 35, wherein the antenna arrangement includes a radar-focusing lens, and wherein the one or more primary radiators are arranged about in or in the focus of the lens (see Fig. 8, dielectric lens 43 is provided over rectangular slot antenna 29; pg. 2, paragraphs 0028-0030, “In an embodiment of the second variant, the antenna includes a focusing apparatus for focusing the transmission signals emerging from the antenna, especially…a lens arranged outwardly on the hollow conductor wall, especially a dielectric lens or a magnetic lens,”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Blodt into the invention of Westerling. Westerling fails to disclose a radar focusing lens. This feature is disclosed by Blodt where a lens may be coupled with an antenna. The combination of Westerling and Blodt would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to alter the focus of signals to improve radar measurements.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Edvardsson (US 20040173020 A1); The invention relates to a pressure sealing device and a method for decreasing the cut-off frequency in such a pressure sealing device used in a radar level gauging system for gauging a filling level of a product kept in a container, the sealing device comprises a waveguide for feeding microwaves in at least one of the following mode types: transverse electric mode, transverse magnetic mode or hybrid mode. Said waveguide is sealed by a dielectric material. A center conductor is arranged at least partially within said dielectric material.
Daufeld et al. (US 11022480 B2); A method for checking the functional ability of an FMCW-based fill-level measuring device, which serves for measuring the fill level of a fill substance located in a container, as well as to a fill-level measuring device suitable for performing this method. For checking the functional ability, a microwave signal is produced, whose frequency change differs from the frequency change of the measurement signal used during regular measurement operation. By comparing the frequency of the difference signal resulting from the microwave signal with a predetermined reference frequency, it is ascertained, whether the fill-level measuring device is functionally able. Thus, the fill-level measuring device detects, independently, whether it is functionally able, or whether an error is present, caused principally by device-internal disturbance signals. This offers, especially, a clear advantage as regards meeting safety standards for the field device.
Kienzle et al. (DE 102018213435 A1); The invention relates to a multi-band radar antenna system (100) for a level measuring device, comprising an antenna (130), a first waveguide arrangement (101, 110) and a second waveguide arrangement (201, 110), each for transmitting transmission signals of different frequencies are set up. The first waveguide arrangement (101, 110) and the second waveguide arrangement (201, 110) are set up to be detachably connected to the antenna (130). The invention further relates to the use of a multi-band radar antenna system (100) for detecting a fill level in a container and a fill level radar system (300) with a multi-band radar antenna system (100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm 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, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648