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
The amendments filed June 8, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, and 12-15 remain pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2 and 9-11 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see pages 5-9, filed June 8, 2026, regarding amended claim 1, that neither of the matching structures 18 of Bergmann constitute a dielectric waveguide element arranged between a primary radiator and a filter in form of a hollow conductor, which guides the radar signal from the primary radiator to the filter and provide a galvanic separation between the primary radiator and the filter. Applicant reasons that Bergmann’s matching structure are integrated coupling features within a conductive waveguide environment and are not configured as an intermediate dielectric transmission elements separating two components, they do not and cannot provide galvanic separation between the primary radiator and the filter.
Examiner is not convinced by this argument. Examiner notes that only the upper matching structure 18 of Bergmann (see Fig. 18 and para. 31) is construed as analogous to the dielectric waveguide element as claimed, and which is located inside the upper distal end of the waveguide 4 (analogous to the filter), such that a measurement signal generated by transmitter 21 (analogous to the primary radiator) necessarily passes through the upper matching structure 18 before entering waveguide 4. As such, Examiner asserts that the upper matching structure 18 is an intermediate element and provides galvanic separation between the primary radiator and the filter.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bergmann (DE 102009000733 B4).
Regarding claim 1, Bergmann teaches a radar measuring device for determining fill levels and/or distances (para. 2, “The applicant produces and distributes measuring devices under the name Micropilot, which operate according to the transit-time measurement method and serve to determine and/or monitor the fill level of a medium in a container. The time-of-flight measurement method uses, for example, high-frequency pulses or radar wave pulses are emitted via an antenna, and the echo waves reflected at the surface of the medium are received again after the distance-dependent travel time of the signal. The distance between the measuring device and the surface of the medium can be determined from the time difference between the emission of the high-frequency pulse and the reception of the reflected echo signal.”), comprising:
a primary radiator configured to transmit and to receive radar signals (para. 20, “The device or measuring instrument 25 comprises a transmitter 21 with a transmit/receive unit not explicitly shown in Fig. 1, in which the high-frequency signals or high-frequency measurement signals 27 are generated and coupled into the waveguide 4 by a coupling unit.”),
an antenna configured to transmit and to receive radar signals (para. 2, “Radar wave pulses are emitted via an antenna, and the echo waves reflected at the surface of the medium are received again after the distance-dependent travel time of the signal.”; Fig. 1, parabolic antenna 1),
a filter comprising a hollow conductor and configured to filter the radar signals, the filter being arranged between the primary radiator and the antenna (para. 27, “A waveguide 4 is fundamentally a bandpass transmission system, since a waveguide can only transmit the high-frequency signals 27 from a certain lower cutoff frequency, which depend on the cross-sectional dimensions of the waveguide 4. An upper limit also arises from the fact that, above a certain upper cutoff frequency, in addition to the propagating fundamental wave type, other wave types can be excited, which would prevent unambiguous signal transmission in the application area of level measurement.”; para. 29, “The waveguide 4, for example, is constructed as a circular waveguide as a waveguide section.”; Fig. 2, waveguide 4 is hollow), and
a dielectric waveguide element configured to guide the radar signals, wherein the dielectric waveguide element is arranged between the primary radiator and the filter, and is further configured to guide the radar signals from the primary radiator to the filter and to provide a galvanic separation between the primary radiator and the filter (para. 31, “At the transition from the excitation element to the waveguide 4 and at the transition from the air-filled waveguide 4 to the radiation structure, matching structures 18, such as a cone tip or a stepped pyramid, are provided to ensure an optimized matching from the dielectric material that conducts the high-frequency signal 27 to the air-filled waveguide 4 and vice versa.”; Figs. 1 and 2, the upper matching structure 18 is arranged below transmitter 21 and the portion of waveguide 4 through which a measurement signal passes; due to the upper matching structure 18 being made of a dielectric material and its function being to direct signals from the transmitter 21 and to the waveguide 4, the upper matching structure 18 provides galvanic separation between the transmitter 21 and the waveguide 4).
Regarding claim 3, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1,
wherein the filter comprises a circular hollow conductor (para. 29, “The waveguide 4, for example, is constructed as a circular waveguide as a waveguide section.”; Fig. 2, waveguide 4 is hollow).
Regarding claim 5, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1,
wherein the filter comprises at least one resonator element configured to adjust a bandpass characteristic (para. 2, “The so-called FMCW method [Frequency Modulated Continuous Waves] can also be implemented in this context with the above measurement principle for level measurement and the above device.”; para. 20, “The device or measuring instrument 25 comprises a transmitter 21 with a transmit/receive unit not explicitly shown in Fig. 1, in which the high-frequency signals or high-frequency measurement signals 27 are generated and coupled into the waveguide 4 by a coupling unit.”; the transmit/receive unit implicitly contains a resonator element and through FMCW modulates center frequency which is a bandpass characteristic).
Regarding claim 6, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1,
wherein the filter comprises at least one aperture configured to adjust a bandpass characteristic (para. 27, “A waveguide 4 is fundamentally a bandpass transmission system, since a waveguide can only transmit the high-frequency signals 27 from a certain lower cutoff frequency, which depend on the cross-sectional dimensions of the waveguide 4. An upper limit also arises from the fact that, above a certain upper cutoff frequency, in addition to the propagating fundamental wave type, other wave types can be excited, which would prevent unambiguous signal transmission in the application area of level measurement.”).
Regarding claim 8, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1,
wherein the antenna comprises a horn antenna (Fig. 2, Examiner is construing the parabolic antenna 1 to be a horn antenna).
Regarding claim 13, Bergmann teaches a system for detecting filling levels and/or distances, comprising
at least one radar measuring device according to claim 1 and a container configured to store a material (para. 2, “The applicant produces and distributes measuring devices under the name Micropilot, which operate according to the transit-time measurement method and serve to determine and/or monitor the fill level of a medium in a container. The time-of-flight measurement method uses, for example, high-frequency pulses or radar wave pulses are emitted via an antenna, and the echo waves reflected at the surface of the medium are received again after the distance-dependent travel time of the signal. The distance between the measuring device and the surface of the medium can be determined from the time difference between the emission of the high-frequency pulse and the reception of the reflected echo signal.”).
Regarding claim 14, Bergmann teaches the system according to claim 13,
wherein the container comprises an agitator (para. 3, “Parabolic antennas are typically used in process measurement technology when, due to disturbed and confined process room conditions, e.g. tall, narrow containers in which internal components, agitators or container walls can generate an interference signal and thus mask the level echo signal in the overall measurement signal, or unfavorable measurement conditions, e.g. For example, excessively low or fluctuating dielectric properties of the medium, poor reflection properties, and/or strong surface dynamics can make it difficult to accurately determine the fill level of a medium in a container.”).
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 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann in view of Kallsand et al. (US 20060000274 A1), hereinafter Kallsand.
Regarding claim 4, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the filter comprises a rectangular hollow conductor.
However, Kallsand teaches
wherein the filter comprises a rectangular hollow conductor (para. 6, “The horn antenna is preferably circular, having a circular waveguide mounted to it. The waveguide may then be circular all the way, or, alternatively, starting as a rectangular waveguide that is transformed to a circular waveguide.”).
Bergmann and Kallsand are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar level gauge devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergmann with the teachings of Kallsand with the motivation that rectangular waveguides are able to handle high power levels and naturally act like high-pass filters.
Regarding claim 7, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the antenna comprises a dielectric lens.
However, Kallsand teaches
wherein the antenna comprises a dielectric lens (para. 38, “The antenna used may be of other known antenna designs, or, as stated above, the antenna may be omitted for higher frequency bands, where the dielectric material is shaped as a lens.”).
Bergmann and Kallsand are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar level gauge devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergmann with the teachings of Kallsand with the motivation that a dielectric lens improves both gain and wave directivity.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann in view of Sai (US 20150160066 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bergmann teaches the radar measuring device according to claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the radar measuring device is configured to measure at a frequency above 100 GHz.
However, Sai teaches
wherein the radar measuring device is configured to measure at a frequency above 100 GHz (para. 22, “The radar pulses may comprise Ultra-WideBand [UWB] radar pulses. "UWB" as used herein refers to a pulse bandwidth of at least 0.5 Giga Hertz [GHz] or fractional bandwidth of at least 25% of the center frequency [which is based on the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA's) UWB definition], while UWB ranges in frequency spectrum can be anywhere between 100 MHz and 300 GHz.”).
Bergmann and Sai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar level gauge devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergmann with the teachings of Sai with the motivation that higher frequency radar signals offer higher directional control.
Regarding claim 15, Bergmann teaches the system according to claim 13, but fails to teach
wherein the container comprises a heating coil.
However, Sai teaches
wherein the container comprises a heating coil (para. 5, “However, radar measurements can be affected by multiple reflections inside storage tanks such as due to tank walls, the tank bottom, the tank roof and tank obstructions including agitators, ladders and the heat coil.”).
Bergmann and Sai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of radar level gauge devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bergmann with the teachings of Sai with the motivation that a heating coil keeps the measured media at a liquid and therefore consistently accurately measurable state.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC K HODAC whose telephone number is (571) 270-0123. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6.
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.
/ERIC K HODAC/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights