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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 05/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites, “a transmitting/receiving unit designed to produce a radar signal, and after reflection of the radar signal on a fill substance surface, to ascertain the fill level based on corresponding received signals;”. The Examiner suggests to re-write this claim for conciseness and clarity.
Claim 16 recites, “wherein the primary radiator is designed as patch antenna, or antenna array, as electrically conductive coupling-pin, or as a slit- hollow conductor antenna.”. This limitation should recite, “wherein the primary radiator is designed as a patch antenna, an antenna array, an electrically conductive coupling-pin, or as a slit- hollow conductor antenna”.
Claim 18 recites, “transmitting-receiving unit”, which has been recited as “transmitted/receiving unit” throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-21 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.
Claims 11, 15 and 17-19 recite the limitation “transmitting/receiving unit” which is indefinite as it is unclear whether this limitation means “transmitted and reviving unit” or “transmitting and receiving unit”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fill level" in “to ascertain the fill level based on corresponding received signals;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "corresponding received signals" in “a transmitting/receiving unit designed to produce a radar signal, and after reflection of the radar signal on a fill substance surface, to ascertain the fill level based on corresponding received signals;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the phrase "can be” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the tube" in “and a primary radiator connected with the transmitting/receiving unit and arranged in the tube interior in a focal point of the radar-bundling means”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "in each case" in “wherein the radar-bundling means and the primary radiator have, in each case, an asymmetric aperture that is larger in parallel with the tube axis than orthogonal to the tube axis.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 11,13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 20020059828 A1) in view of WAELDE et al. (US 20230223704 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Muller discloses [Note: what Muller fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A radar based, fill level measuring device for measuring a fill level of a fill substance in a container (see 11 of Figs. 1 and 2, further see paragraph 0040, “In FIG. 1, the apparatus 1 according to the invention is in the form of a compact device, with the electronics section 11, that is to say the signal production unit and the control/evaluation unit, being located outside the container 4.”), comprising:
a securement means by which the fill level measuring device is securable at a lateral opening of the container (see Figs. 1 and 2, flange 10 which attaches 11 to the opening of a lateral opening of the container);
a transmitting/receiving unit designed to produce a radar signal (see Fig. 1 and 2, electronics section 11, further see paragraph 0040, “In FIG. 1, the apparatus 1 according to the invention is in the form of a compact device, with the electronics section 11, that is to say the signal production unit and the control/evaluation unit, being located outside the container 4.”, where the measurements signals are reflected microwave signals (i.e. radar signals)), and after reflection of the radar signal on a fill substance surface, to ascertain the fill level based on corresponding received signals (see paragraph 0040, “The antenna 7, which transmits measurement signals in the direction of the surface 3 of the filling material 2 and receives the measurement signals reflected on the surface 3 of the filling material 2”, further see paragraph 0001, “The invention relates to an apparatus for determining the filling level of a filling material in a container having a signal production unit which produces measurement signals”); and
a tubular antenna arrangement having a defined tube axis, wherein the tubular antenna arrangement can be led through the lateral opening of the container (see Figs. 1 and 2, elongated element 8 coupled with the antenna 16 and unit 11, further see paragraph 0040, “FIG. 1 shows a first embodiment of the apparatus according to the invention. The antenna 7 is integrated in the elongated element 8.”), and wherein the tubular antenna arrangement has:
an end region which, in a secured state, protrudes out into the container (see Figs. 1 and 2 where the elongated element 8 protrudes out into the container in a secured mounted state),
a radar-bundling means arranged in the end region and oriented in the secured state perpendicularly to the fill substance (see Figs. 1 and 2 where elongated element 8 coupled with the unit 11 is a radar-bundling means), and
a primary radiator connected with the transmitting/receiving unit and arranged in the tube interior in a focal point of the radar-bundling means to transmit the radar signal to the fill substance and to receive its reflection (see Figs. 1 and 2 where the antenna 16 is coupled with the unit 11 to focus the radar signal to the fill level substance in the container and to receive the radar signal reflection),
WAELDE discloses,
wherein the radar-bundling means and the primary radiator have, in each case, an asymmetric aperture that is larger in parallel with the tube axis than orthogonal to the tube axis (see Fig. 2b where the electronic beam steering allows for apertures of different angles and shapes, further see Fig. 4B where the beam aperture is greater in a one direction than the orthogonal direction. Note, this aperture is more than 1.5 times greater than the smaller aperture in the orthogonal direction).
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 WAELDE into the invention of Muller. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar fill-level measuring devices. The combination would be reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize noise data due to container wall.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Muller and WAELDE discloses [Note: what Muller fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11,
WAELDE discloses,
wherein the aperture of the radar-bundling means, and of the primary radiator, is greater parallel to the tube axis by at least a factor of 1.5 than orthogonally to the tube axis (see Fig. 2b where the electronic beam steering allows for apertures of different angles and shapes, further see Fig. 4B where the beam aperture is greater in a one direction than the orthogonal direction. Note, this aperture is more than 1.5 times greater than the smaller aperture in the orthogonal direction).
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 WAELDE into the invention of Muller. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar fill-level measuring devices. The combination would be reasonable expectation of success in order to minimizing noise data due to container wall.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Muller and WAELDE discloses [Note: what Muller fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11,
WAELDE discloses,
wherein the transmitting/receiving unit is designed to produce the radar signal with a frequency of at least 60 GHz (see paragraph 0071, “For example, the antenna array may be designed for a frequency of 80 GHz and the fill level antenna for a frequency of 180 GHz.”).
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 WAELDE into the invention of Muller. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar fill-level measuring devices. The combination would be reasonable expectation of success in order to provide high resolution fill-level data.
Regarding claim 16, Muller further discloses
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the primary radiator is designed as patch antenna, or antenna array, as electrically conductive coupling-pin, or as a slit- hollow conductor antenna (see paragraph 0042, “While, in the embodiment of the device 1 according to the invention shown in FIG. 1, the measurement signals are carried within the elongated element 8 via a coaxial cable 9, the measurement signals in the case of the configuration shown in FIG. 2 are carried via a hollow conductor 12. A waveguide may also be used. Furthermore, the measurement signals may also be fed directly into the horn antenna 16 via a microstripline arranged on a board.”).
Regarding claim 17, Muller further discloses
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the primary radiator is designed as an integral component of the transmitting/receiving unit (see paragraph 0040, “FIG. 1 shows a first embodiment of the apparatus according to the invention. The antenna 7 is integrated in the elongated element 8.”).
Regarding claim 18, Muller further discloses
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the transmitting/receiving unit is arranged in the fill level measuring device such that the transmitting- receiving unit is located in the secured state outside of the container (see Figs. 1 and 2 where the electronics section 11 is located and secured outside of the container).
Regarding claim 19, Muller further discloses
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the primary radiator is connected with the transmitting/receiving unit via a waveguide (see Fig. 2, further see paragraph 0024, “FIG. 2: shows an embodiment of the apparatus according to the invention, in which the measurement signals are fed in via a waveguide”).
Regarding claim 20, Muller further discloses
The fill level measuring device of claim 19, wherein the waveguide is a hollow conductor, a dielectric waveguide, a microstrip conductor, or a coaxial cable (see paragraph 0042, “While, in the embodiment of the device 1 according to the invention shown in FIG. 1, the measurement signals are carried within the elongated element 8 via a coaxial cable 9, the measurement signals in the case of the configuration shown in FIG. 2 are carried via a hollow conductor 12. A waveguide may also be used. Furthermore, the measurement signals may also be fed directly into the horn antenna 16 via a microstripline arranged on a board.”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Muller and WAELDE discloses [Note: what Muller fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11,
WAELDE discloses,
wherein the radar-bundling means is lens-shaped and/or made of PE, PEEK or PTFE (see paragraph 0078, “According to a further embodiment, the antenna system 105 has one or more anti-attachment devices. Here, for example, a radome, purge air or a bag or cover made of flexible PTFE material may be mentioned.”).
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 WAELDE into the invention of Muller. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar fill-level measuring devices. The combination would be reasonable expectation of success in order to protect the antenna from the environment.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 20020059828 A1) in view of WAELDE et al. (US 20230223704 A1) further in view of Sulzer et al. (US 20200003592 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Muller and WAELDE discloses [Note: what the combination of Muller and WAELDE fails to disclose is strike-through]
The fill level measuring device as claimed in claim 11,
Sulzer discloses,
wherein the antenna arrangement is sized such that it can be led through a container opening with a diameter of maximum DN50 (see paragraph 0060, “The securing of the electrode 4′″ to the measuring tube 2 is not shown in more detail but is known in principle. A pin electrode 4′″ is typically used in flow meters with measuring tubes having small nominal widths, for example smaller than DN50.”).
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 Sulzer into the invention of Muller in view of WAELDE. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar fill-level measuring devices. The combination would be reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a secured attachment while minimizing contamination into the container.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claim 14, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Waelde et al. (US 20180372531 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses radar fill level measuring device which provides electronic beam steering to detect at different angles and aperture shapes in the container (see Figs. 1, 2A and 2B).
WELLE (US 20230098780 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a lateral mounted radar fill level measuring device (see paragraph 0116, “FIG. 6 further shows that a self-sustaining level, limit level, or pressure measurement system further comprises a limit level sensor 606 configured to be mounted laterally on the inner wall of the container 601 and to output a warning signal to the outside.”).
DIETERLE et al. (US 20220291331 A1) is also considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a lateral mounted radar fill level measuring device (see paragraph 0009, “If the sensor is mounted laterally, the plane of the lateral container opening is perpendicular to the container bottom, or container lid, and “below” this plane means the part of the measuring device that protrudes into the container. This part houses the electronic unit. This is thus located in the area of the housing which is surrounded by the thread and is inside the container when screwed in, “inside” being defined by the plane of the sealing arrangement, e.g. the sealing ring.”).
Fehrenbach et al. (US 6097346 A) is also considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses a lateral mounted tubular radar fill level measuring device (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights