DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 6 and 12-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 12 (and claims 13-14 by dependency): “the erroneous mean value” lacks antecedent basis. It appears this should read “the measurement value classified as erroneous” or otherwise be reworded to overcome the antecedent basis issue and clarify what is meant by this term.
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, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hendrickson et al. (US 20150019108 A1).Regarding claim 1:Hendrickson teaches a fill level measuring system for measuring the fill level in a reservoir, the fill level measuring system comprising:
a sensor element configured to be arranged relative to a surface of a substance present in the reservoir, the sensor element configured to transmit a measurement signal in the direction of the surface and receive a reflection signal reflected by the surface in response to the measurement signal (e.g., FIG. 1 – 104; [0018]-[0019]), and
a processing unit configured to conduct a time-of-flight measurement on the basis of the time difference between measurement signal transmission and reflection signal reception, the processing unit being configured to process measurement values from the time-of-flight measurement in order to determine a fill height of the reservoir (e.g., [0018]-[0019], [0021]), the processing unit being configured to detect disturbances on the surface and take the disturbances into account when determining the fill height ([0072]-[0074], [0081]-[0088])
Regarding claim 7:Hendrickson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Hendrickson also teaches:
wherein the processing unit is configured to output a warning signal if the determined fill height of the reservoir drops below a predefined lower limit ([0003], [0022], [0027]-[0028])
Regarding claim 9:Hendrickson teaches method for measuring the fill level in a reservoir, the method comprising:
transmitting a measurement signal in the direction of a surface of a substance present in the reservoir, receiving a reflection signal reflected by the surface in response to the measurement signal, conducting a time-of-flight measurement on the basis of the time difference between measurement signal transmission and reflection signal reception, and processing measurement values from the time-of-flight measurement in order to determine a fill height of the reservoir, and detecting disturbances on the surface and taking account of the disturbances when determining the fill height(e.g., FIG. 1 – 104; [0018]-[0019]; [0021]; [0072]-[0074], [0081]-[0088])
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 of this title, 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 2-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 20150019108 A1) in view of Patterson et al. (US 20160003666 A1).Regarding claim 2:Hendrickson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Hendrickson fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the processing unit is configured to form a moving average from the measurement values(Henderson does suggest averaging sensor readings – [0068])Patterson teaches:
wherein the processing unit is configured to form a moving average from the measurement values ([0019])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a moving average filter provided in simple, cumulative, and/or weighted forms, as taught by Patterson, in the device of Hendrickson as it is an art-recognized filter / way to detect erroneous values.
Regarding claim 3:Hendrickson and Patterson teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 2 rejection above Hendrickson and Patterson teach or render obvious:
wherein the current moving average of the measurement values is the current fill height (e.g., Patterson: [0019]; [0021]; [0030]; FIG. 1 – 12 -> 14)
Regarding claim 4:Hendrickson and Patterson teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 2 rejection above Hendrickson and Patterson teach or render obvious:
wherein the processing unit is configured to compare a current measurement value with the moving average and classify the current measurement value as erroneous if the current measurement value deviates from the moving average by more than a predefined threshold value(e.g., Patterson – [0019], [0028]-[0030]. The moving average embodiment of Patterson either teaches or renders obvious the instant claim limitations. It is a moving average filter which means it must remove values based on the moving average. Even without viewing the remaining disclosure of Patterson, this clearly implicitly teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that the removed values are those that deviate from the moving average by some specific amount.)
Regarding claim 10:Hendrickson and Patterson teach all the limitations of claim 3, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 2 rejection above Hendrickson and Patterson teach or render obvious:
wherein the processing unit is configured to compare a current measurement value with the moving average and classify the current measurement value as erroneous if the current measurement value deviates from the moving average by more than a predefined threshold value(e.g., Patterson – [0019], [0028]-[0030]. The moving average embodiment of Patterson either teaches or renders obvious the instant claim limitations. It is a moving average filter which means it must remove values based on the moving average. Even without viewing the remaining disclosure of Patterson, this clearly implicitly teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art that the removed values are those that deviate from the moving average by some specific amount.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson et al. (US 20150019108 A1) in view of Patterson et al. (US 20160003666 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 20220349741 A1).Regarding claim 8:Hendrickson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Hendrickson fails to teach:
wherein the substance in the reservoir is a greaseLee teaches:
wherein the substance in the reservoir is a grease (e.g., [0032])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor a grease level, as taught by Lee, in the device of Hendrickson as it is an art-recognized equivalent use for ultrasonic level sensors. It is known to monitor liquid/fluid levels using ultrasonic sensors. Lee teaches that grease is a type of fluid/liquid whose level may be monitored using ultrasonic level sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11 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.
Claims 6 and 12-14 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. Claims 5 and 11 each recite substantially the same allowable subject matter of “wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether the measurement value classified as erroneous occurs cyclically”, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations. It is known to filter out specific frequencies, harmonics, etc. that contribute noise to the signal. See, e.g., Chang (US 20220299477 A1) and Mimeault (US 20110026015 A1). It is also known to increase the accuracy of level sensing by accounting for fluctuations due to waves in the liquid. Ankerstrom et al. (US 20080297403 A1) teaches accounting for such fluctuations to increase accuracy (e.g., by determining a true level based on wave periodicity – [0032]-[0033]; FIG. 3). However, Ankerstrom does not eliminate these cyclical events, nor are they errors. And as for references such as Chang and Mimeault, they filter out frequencies that are not of interest to the sensing system. This is materially different than the claim which involves determining whether the measurement value classified as erroneous occurs cyclically (which is used for elimination of such cyclical values) and is specifically done by initially comparing values to a moving average to determine if they are erroneous and then determining if the erroneous values are occurring cyclically.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights