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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng US PG-PUB 2022/0268617 A1 (hereafter Zheng), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of WO 2021227144 listed as the third reference under the heading “Foreign Patent Documents” on the IDS filed 29 August 2024.
As to claim 1: Zheng discloses a filling level measurement arrangement (20; see fig. 3) for measuring the fill level in a reservoir (10; see fig. 1 and ¶ 15), the filling level measurement arrangement being arrangeable above a surface of a substance present in the reservoir (see ¶ 25), the filling level measurement arrangement comprising:
a sensor housing (24; see fig. 2 and ¶ 17) with a base plate (241; see fig. 5 and ¶ 18) which defines an interior space (not labeled but see the space considered to be in an interior space in fig. 2), the underside of the base plate (241) being configured to face the surface of the substance (see ¶ 24 and 25 regarding the relative position of the base plate to the fluid measured),
a sensor arrangement (see fig. 5; the components depicted therein are considered to constitute a sensor arrangement) with an evaluation electronic system (41; see figs. 2 and 5 as well as ¶ 21) and a sensor element (420; see fig. 5 and ¶ 23) is arranged in the interior space of the sensor housing (24) (see fig. 2) , the sensor element (420) is arranged in the base plate (241; see ¶ 24) and is designed to send a measurement signal in the direction of the surface of the substance and to receive a reflection signal reflected by the surface of the substance in response to the measurement signal (see ¶ 24 and 25), the sensor element (420) being set back in the base plate (241) with respect to the underside of the base plate (see fig. 5 and ¶ 24), in the direction of the interior space of the sensor housing (see fig. 2).
As to claim 2: Zheng discloses the filling level measurement arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the base plate (241) has a cylindrical hole (242; see fig. 5 and ¶ 24) in which the sensor element (420) is arranged (see ¶ 24).
As to claim 4: Zheng discloses the filling level measurement arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the filling level measuring arrangement (20; see fig. 3) is arranged centrally above the reservoir (10) (see fig. 3 regarding the position of the level measuring arrangement 20 and reservoir 10).
As to claim 6: Zheng discloses the filling level measurement arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the base plate (241) is interchangeable (see fig. 5 and ¶ 18; the base plate is a component of cover 24 but is distinct therein and can therefore be removed if so desired and is therefore considered to be interchangeable) and/or wherein the base plate has an interchangeable insert in which the sensor element is fastened.
As to claim 7: Zheng discloses the filling level measurement arrangement according to claim 2, wherein the filling level measurement arrangement (20) is arranged centrally above the reservoir (10) (see fig. 3 regarding the position of the level measuring arrangement 20 and reservoir 10).
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.
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 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng US PG-PUB 2022/0268617 A1 (hereafter Zheng), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of WO 2021227144 listed as the third reference under the heading “Foreign Patent Documents” on the IDS filed 29 August 2024 in view of Krietemeier et al. US Pat 6,311,868 B1 (hereafter Krietemeier).
As to claim 5: Zheng teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a base plate (241), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the base plate is an injection moulding element.
However, Krietemeier teaches a plate (112; fig. 1) is an injection moulding element (see col. 8, lines 19-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng’s base plate to be an injection moulding element because injection molding provides the useful and predictable results of a consistent manufacturing method that is precise, repeatable, durable, and especially useful for storing liquids because it can produce leak resistant shapes/materials without welding lines and is therefore particularly useful in applications where liquids are being stored and thus would be useful to Zheng’s device by prevention of leaks or potential leaky weld/bond locations.
As to claim 8: Zheng teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 7, including a base plate (241), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the base plate is an injection moulding element.
However, Krietemeier teaches a plate (112; fig. 1) is an injection moulding element (see col. 8, lines 19-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zheng’s base plate to be an injection moulding element because injection molding provides the useful and predictable results of a consistent manufacturing method that is precise, repeatable, durable, and especially useful for storing liquids because it can produce leak resistant shapes/materials without welding lines and is therefore particularly useful in applications where liquids are being stored and thus would be useful to Zheng’s device by prevention of leaks or potential leaky weld/bond locations.
As to claim 9: Zheng as modified by Krietemeier teaches the filling level measurement arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the base plate (241 of Zheng) is interchangeable (see Zheng fig. 5 and ¶ 18; the base plate is a component of cover 24 but is distinct therein and can therefore be removed if so desired and is therefore considered to be interchangeable) and/or wherein the base plate has an interchangeable insert in which the sensor element is fastened.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
As to claim 3: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a filling level measurement arrangement wherein the base plate has a conical hole, wherein the sensor element is arranged in the tip of the conical hole, when considered in combination with the other limitations as recited in the instant claim and those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while it is known from the prior art to make use of a conical hole in a sensor arrangement, (see, for example Dieterle et al. US PG-PUB 2022/0291331 A1 ¶ 16 [hereafter Dieterle]), there is no reasonable teaching, suggestion, or other motivation to combine the teaching of Dieterle with any of the other cited prior art of record to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention as set forth by the limitations of claim 3.
As to claims 10-12: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 3 and accordingly each is also objected to as containing allowable subject matter at least by virtue of depending from a claim that is itself objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights