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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because instant Figs. 1 and 2 only depict unlabeled blank boxes. Blank reference boxes should also be labeled with their representative structure/method step in order to more easily identify the structure quickly that is utilized in the invention without having to read through the specification. For example, reference box S3, as shown in Fig. 2, should also be labeled - - removing a quantity of gas from the fluid container - -. See 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The instant filed specification is objected to, since it fails to include the proper headings for different portions. The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Instant independent claim 9 employs capitalizations of the terms: “Providing,” “Connecting,” “Removing,” and “Determining.” These should be amended to employ lowercase letters. All other claims a similarly rejected due to their dependency. In addition, instant independent claims 1 and 9 recite “level” in the preamble, and subsequently recite “fill level” in lines 14 and 11, respectively. The claim terminology must remain consistent throughout the claimed inventions. The Examiner suggests amending the preambles to employ “fill level.” 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 1-8, 12 and 15 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12 and 15, the phrases "in particular," “preferably” and “can be” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Instant dependent claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation “pressure reducer.” It is unclear as to what exactly constitutes a “pressure reducer,” structurally, that gives rise to an alleged pressure reduction in the claimed device, rendering the claims indefinite. The instant filed specification fails to adequately describe and/or define the structure and/or physical aspects of the pressure reducer, or give any examples of known pressure reducers, giving rise to any alleged pressure reduction in the device. Although element 5 in instant Fig. 1 depicts a “pressure reducer,” it is only a general schematic, without any details in regarding element 5, it fails to add any further definiteness of the limitation “pressure reducer.”
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the inlet" and “the pressure reducer” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Instant dependent claim 5 recites the limitations: “the fill level detection device is designed to determine the fill level based on a withdrawal amount of the fluid.” It is unclear as to what exactly constitutes an “amount” in regards to the removed/withdrawn fluid, and how is exactly the “amount” is determined/established by the fill level detection device. The instant filed specification provides no details in this “amount” in regards to the removed/withdrawn fluid, and only appears within claim 5, rendering the claim indefinite.
Instant dependent claim 8 recites the limitations: “wherein a fluid container change can be detected by means of the fill level detection device, in particular by detecting a pressure drop at the connecting piece and/or line piece.” It is unclear exactly what “a fluid container change” constitutes, rendering the claim indefinite. The instant filed specification discloses that it is related to a pressure change, however, there are no details give or other aspects in regards to any pressure change (increase and/or decrease in pressure) that results in a determination of a “change” in the fluid container.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0362353 to Kampitsch et al.
Regarding instant independent claims 1 and 9, Kampitch et al. disclose a device and method for indirectly measuring a fill level of a pressurized liquid in a fluid container (see entire reference) including providing a connecting piece and/or line connectable to the connecting piece (5, see left portion of Fig. 1); wherein connecting piece and/or line connectable to a connection of the fluid container whereby gas can be removed from the fluid container thus connecting the connecting piece to a fluid outlet of the container, wherein the connecting piece and/or the line piece has a fluid channel on or in (see paras 0008 and 0021) which at least one temperature sensor (TH2) is arranged for measuring the temperature of a fluid in the fluid channel, and a fill level detection device/control device with a computing device (see para 0023) connected to the temperature sensor and which is designed/programmed with a computer routine to measure a temperature curve (i.e. a continuous temperature measurements over time resulting in a series or sequence of discrete temperature measurements at moments in time, thus indicating a temperature change over time, as the fluid container empties of the stored pressurized fluid, thus obviously forming a temperature curve of temperature vs. time to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to monitor the level of the pressurized fluid in the container over time as it empties/is withdrawn from the pressurized fluid container) over a predeterminable period of time during the removal process/removing steps from the fluid container and to determine/determining the fill level of the liquid in the fluid container based on the measured temperature curve/sequence or series of temperature measurements as the fluid is removed from the container over time, which inherently includes a temperature drop/decrease due to the decrease/expansion when the fluid is released/withdrawn/removed from the fluid container (meeting the limitations recited in instant independent claims 1 and 9, and instant dependent claim 10); wherein the fill level detection device is designed to determine the fill level based on a withdrawal/extracted amount/mass of fluid (see para 0020 and above regarding sequence of temperature measurements) (meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 5); wherein a fluid container change can be detected by means of the fill level detection device by detecting a pressure drop at the connecting piece and/or line piece (see para 0023) (meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 8); wherein determining the fill level, a comparison is made with previously determined comparison curves that represent different fill levels (i.e. calibration, see para 0023 (meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 11); and, overall, a fluid system comprising a device for indirectly measuring the fill level of a pressurized liquid in a fluid container in the form of a liquefied gas container with the device of claim 1 and a fluid container which can be connected to the connecting piece and/or line piece of the device (meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 15).
Regarding claim 2, Kampitsch et al. do not explicitly disclose employing an additional temperature sensor arranged at a different position along the fluid channel. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to employ an additional temperature sensor, which inherently must be at a different position along the fluid channel, since an additional temperature sensor cannot be collocated with the temperature sensor (TH2), for the purposes of redundancy and/or backup temperature sensing in the event the temperature sensor (TH2) fails, or begins to malfunction and produce erroneous temperature measurements.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Kampitsch et al. do not explicitly disclose for determining the fill level, the time until a temperature drop of at least 0.5 degrees Celsius is determined, is measured since the gas extraction began (as recited in instant dependent claim 12); or the determination of the temperature curve only takes place after a predeterminable period of time (as recited in instant dependent claim 14). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to wait a predeterminable time period before making temperature measurements using the device and method disclosed by Kampitsch et al., based on a drop of 0.5 degrees Celsius being determined, thus allowing for stabilization of the temperature of the fluid being extracted from the fluid container itself, as well as the fluid channel itself, ensuring more accurate subsequent temperature measurements that would not be effected due to the fluid channel temperature change due to the extracted fluid, and thus being in equilibrium with the temperature of the extracted fluid, thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claims 12 and 14.
Regarding claim 7, Kampitsch et al. do not explicitly disclose that the connecting piece and/or the line piece is made of plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to form/make these elements from plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, the choice of plastic, or any other suitable material would be based on the material to withstand the associated pressure and temperature ranges of the pressurized fluid within the fluid container, costs of manufacturing employing the particular material, and a numerous other engineering and/or design reasons
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0362353 to Kampitsch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 4,987,776 to Koon. Kampitsch et al. disclose a device and method for measuring the level of a pressurized liquid in a fluid container having all of the elements and method steps stated previously. Kampitsch et al. do not explicitly disclose that a display device is arranged and designed to display the fill level at least in 25% increments between 0 and 100% (as recited in instant dependent claim 6). Koon discloses a device for measuring the level of liquid in a fluid container (12) (see entire reference) having a display device/register (18) that indicates the liquid level in the fluid container in 25% increments, being Empty (0%) ¼, ½, ¾ and Full (100%) (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to employ the display device/register to provide indication of the 25% levels of liquid in the fluid container to indicate when the fluid container is full, empty, half-full, etc., to indicate to a user the actual level of fluid remaining in the fluid container, thus the user can take action of refilling the container with the liquid before it becomes empty.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0362353 to Kampitsch et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2002/0244089 to Kriese. Kampitsch et al. disclose a device and method for measuring the level of a pressurized liquid in a fluid container having all of the elements and method steps stated previously. Kampitsch et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the ambient temperature of the fluid container is determined, and the fill level is determined by means of the determined ambient temperature. Kriese discloses a device for measuring the level in a fluid container (2) (see entire reference) wherein a temperature sensor is used to measure ambient temperature (see paras 0013, 0026, 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to further employ a temperature sensor measuring the ambient temperature, as taught by Kriese, modifying the device disclosed by Kampitsch et al., thus provided corrected values for the fill level since the ambient temperature can influence the measurements made of the temperature and pressure (see paras 0026 and 0035), meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 13.
Conclusion
Due to the presence of 112(b) rejections of instant dependent claims 3 and 4, the Examiner could not reasonably search and consider the recited limitations in these claims. The absence of a prior art rejection of these claims is not an indication of allowable subject matter. Once the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are absolved, the Examiner will again perform a search of the recited limitations, potentially resulting a Final Rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes, among others, EP 3975835 A1 to Duchardt et al., which discloses temperature measurements of an extraction line from a liquid gas container employing time periods and temperature drops before making temperature measurements to determine fill levels. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights