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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a distribution determination unit” in claim 1.
“an extraction unit” in claim 1.
“a measurement value determination unit” in claims 1-2 and 7-8,
“a candidate determination unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sai (US 2010/0070208 A1) (hereinafter Sai).
Regarding claim 1, Sai teaches a level meter that measures a level of an object stored in a container [tank level measurement system] (see Abstract, Para [0019]), the level meter comprising:
a transmission/reception unit including a transmission circuit that transmits a measurement signal for measuring the level and a reception circuit that receives a reflection signal due to reflection of the measurement signal [antenna 108 emits electromagnetic waves or other wireless signals towards the material 104 and receives reflected signals from the material 104; each sensor 106a-106b includes any suitable structure for generating signals for wireless transmission and for receiving reflected signals] (Para [0020], see Figs. 1-2);
a distribution determination unit that determines a reception intensity distribution of the reflection signal with respect to a distance from the level meter based on a reception intensity of the reflection signal received by the reception circuit [data acquisition 212 and signal processing 214; range profile of received wireless signals; can plot a magnitude of the received wireless signals along a time/range axis] (Para [0046-0048], see Figs. 2-7);
an extraction unit that extracts a peak position and a peak intensity from the reception intensity distribution determined by the distribution determination unit [selecting/classifying at least some of the detected reflection peaks] (Para [0054] see Abstract, Claim 1);
a measurement value determination unit that determines a measurement value related to a distance or the level of the object based on the peak position extracted by the extraction unit [identifying a level of the material of the tank using at least one of the tracked reflection peaks] (see Abstract, Claim 1);
a candidate determination unit that extracts a plurality of combinations of the peak position and the peak intensity by the extraction unit from the reception intensity distribution determined by the distribution determination unit and determines the combination as a plurality of peak candidates [Hierarchical Decision Making algorithm for peak detection, identification and tracking; reflection peaks are identified and classified; different peak candidates such as pre-identified level peaks, bottom peaks, obstruction peaks (Para [0054-0064]); and
a display configured to display information on the measurement value and the reception intensity corresponding to each of the plurality of peak candidates determined by the candidate determination unit [information (such as the determined material level) can be displayed via display unit 216; reflections identified can be displayed as a series of pulsed peaks] (Para [0029, 0034], see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, Sai as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein when any one of a plurality of the peak candidates displayed on the display is selected as a target peak, the measurement value determination unit removes the peak candidate other than the target peak from the reception intensity distribution and determines a distance or the level of the object based on the target peak to be the measurement value related to the object [dynamic screening of the detected reflection peaks; locks out reflections that are not relevant; identifying a level of the material using at least one of the tracked reflection peaks] (Para [0055-0064], see Fig. 4, Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sai as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein after the target peak is selected, the display displays information on the measurement value and the reception intensity corresponding to the target peak as the peak candidate [information (such as the determined material level) can be displayed via display unit 216; reflections identified can be displayed as a series of pulsed peaks] (Para [0029, 0034], see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, Sai as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein after the target peak is selected, information on the target peak can be erased [computer readable program code capable of deleted information] (Para [0011, 0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Sai as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the display displays a stability of the reception intensity when displaying the information on the measurement value and the reception intensity corresponding to each of a plurality of the peak candidates [in range profile 300, reflections identified can be displayed as a series of pulsed peaks (which can be considered as indicative of signal stability)] (Para [0029, 0034], see Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 7, Sai as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein after the target peak is selected, diagnosis regarding a measurement environment is performed based on the target peak and the reception intensity distribution, and the measurement value determination unit executes optimization of a setting necessary for determining a measurement value regarding a distance or the level of the object according to a result of the diagnosis [HDM algorithm can identify a target peak under various interferences, such as high-mode interferences in stillpipes, bottom reflections, obstruction reflections, power on/off, loading in/off, antenna/internal EMC reflections, different types of material, and small tank dimension; self-adaptive detection and tracking for optimizing level detection] (Para [0024, 0078, 0046-0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Sai as applied to claim 7 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the measurement value determination unit executes optimization of a setting necessary for determining a measurement value related to a distance or the level of the object by applying a predetermined setting corresponding to a classification of a result of the diagnosis [HDM algorithm can identify a target peak under various interferences, such as high-mode interferences in stillpipes, bottom reflections, obstruction reflections, power on/off, loading in/off, antenna/internal EMC reflections, different types of material, and small tank dimension; self-adaptive detection and tracking for optimizing level detection; filtering peaks associated with a distance greater than a specified maximum distance] (Para [0024, 0078, 0046-0076], see Claims 1-3).
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.
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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sai, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turcotte et al. (US 2018/0238997 A1) (hereinafter Turcotte).
Regarding claim 6, Sai as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein after the target peak is selected, diagnosis regarding a measurement environment is performed based on the target peak and the reception intensity distribution [HDM algorithm can identify a target peak under various interferences, such as high-mode interferences in stillpipes, bottom reflections, obstruction reflections, power on/off, loading in/off, antenna/internal EMC reflections, different types of material, and small tank dimension; self-adaptive detection and tracking for optimizing level detection] (Para [0024, 0078, 0046-0076]). Sai fails to teach wherein the display displays a suggestion message regarding the measurement environment of the level according to a result of the diagnosis. Turcotte teaches a level meter comprising a display with a user interface for displaying status information (Para [0039]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sai with Turcotte such that the display displays a suggestion message regarding the measurement environment of the level according to a result of the diagnosis, in order to inform the user of the status.
Regarding claim 9, Sai as applied to claim 1 teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein a question regarding a measurement condition of the level is displayed on the display, and optimization of a setting necessary for determining a measurement value regarding a distance or the level of the object is executed based on an answer input to the question. Turcotte teaches a level meter comprising a user interface for entering parameters with a keypad and displaying user and status information (Para [0039]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Sai with Turcotte such that a question regarding a measurement condition of the level is displayed on the display, and optimization of a setting necessary for determining a measurement value regarding a distance or the level of the object is executed based on an answer input to the question, in order to allow a user to input desired parameters for determining the level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights