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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the preliminary amendment filed on 09/17/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the title is not descriptive. A new title that would include the inventive features of the claimed invention is respectfully requested.
Double Patenting
Claims 14-16, 21-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/855,757 to Ichikawa et al. (hereafter Ichikawa). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the invention as claimed by Ichikawa disclose substantially the same arrangement for the liquid level sensor. However, Ichikawa teaches a grounded conductor while the instant claims disclose an input circuit.
The conflicting claims are presented below while the instant claims are bolded and underlined. Please note that, for simplicity, claim 7 is shorted and is not presented in full below.
A liquid level gauge comprising:
a grounded conductor that is extended in a liquid level detection direction;
a sensor unit that includes n columns (n≥3) of sensors in which an electrode, the electrode forming capacitance with the grounded conductor, is arranged in the liquid level detection direction; (instant claim 14)
a discrimination means; and (instant claim 14)
a liquid level determination means, (instant claim 14)
wherein when a predetermined range in the liquid level detection direction is referred to as a region and each range obtained by dividing the region in the liquid level detection direction is referred to as a division region, a sensor in a first column has a.sub.1 (a.sub.1≥2) division regions when a liquid level measurement range is considered to be a region, a sensor in a second column has a.sub.1 regions whose ranges and numbers correspond to ranges and numbers of the division regions of the sensor in the first column, where each of the regions has a.sub.2 (a.sub.2≥2) division regions, a sensor in an n-th column has regions whose number is obtained by multiplying numbers from a.sub.1 to a.sub.n−1 and whose ranges and numbers correspond to ranges and numbers of division regions of a sensor in an n−1-th column, where each of the regions has a.sub.n(a.sub.n≥2) division regions, the electrode is positioned at a boundary of regions or at a boundary of division regions in the liquid level detection direction, and as for electrodes of sensors in second and subsequent columns, electrodes located at boundaries of regions are connected in parallel with each other and electrodes located at same boundaries of division regions in respective regions are connected in parallel with each other, so as to constitute a plurality of groups, (instant claim 14)
the discrimination means discriminates a larger and smaller relationship of capacitance of a plurality of electrodes of the sensor in the first column, and as for the sensors in the second and subsequent columns, the discrimination means discriminates a larger and smaller relationship of capacitance of the plurality of groups for each sensor, and (instant claims 14 and 15)
the liquid level determination means determines a liquid level based on discrimination of the discrimination means. (instant claim 14)
2. The liquid level gauge according to claim 1, wherein an adjustment unit is provided for each sensor so that capacitance for discriminating the larger and smaller relationship always have different values from each other. (instant claim 16)
4. The liquid level gauge according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein numbers from the a.sub.1 to a.sub.n are all 2, and the discrimination means outputs a discrimination result of each sensor as a binary number to the liquid level determination means. (instant claims 21, 24-29)
5. The liquid level gauge according to claim 4, wherein any one of the electrodes also serves as the adjustment unit in each sensor. (instant claim 22)
6. The liquid level gauge according to claim 5, wherein the electrode which also serves as the adjustment unit is an electrode located at a lowest position in the liquid level detection direction in each sensor. (instant claim 23)
7. A sensor for locating a position of an interface between a first substance and a second substance, the sensor comprising: a first electrical conductor; and K sensor blocks, where K is a predetermined integer satisfying 2≤K, wherein a k-th sensor block among the K sensor blocks includes M(k) second electrical conductors and n(k) conducting lines, where k∈{x∈N:1≤x≤K}, N is a set of all positive integers, n(k) is a predetermined integer satisfying 2≤n(k), M(1)=4 or M(1)=6 or M(1)>8, and for any k∈{x∈N:1≤x≤K} […]. (instant claim 30)
9. A liquid level gauge comprising: the sensor according to claim 7 or 8, wherein a first substance is a liquid, and a second substance is a gas. (instant claim 31)
10. The liquid level gauge according to claim 9, wherein a normal direction of the M(1) planes is a vertical direction. (instant claim 32)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 14-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 claim 14, the claim recites “a liquid level determination device”, “a discrimination device”, “a sensor unit”, “an input circuit”, such that “the liquid level determination device determines a liquid level based on discrimination of the discrimination device” without disclosing the structural cooperation between the liquid level determination device that the rest of the liquid level gauge (i.e., the input circuit, the sensor circuit, the determination device). the claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural cooperation between the determination device and the sensor unit, the input circuit, and the discrimination device. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites “a sensor for locating a position of an interface between a fist substance and a second substance” without explaining the particular details of the K sensor blocks configured for “locating a position of an interface”. Instead, the claim teaches the arrangement of the K sensor blocks. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements (see MPEP § 2172.01). The omitted elements are: a device for locating a position of an interface. For examination purposes, the claim will be understood as teach only the arrangement of the K sensor blocks. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 31, the claim discloses “a first substance” and “a second substance” without explaining whether these substances are the same as or in addition to “a first substance and a second substance” as disclosed in the independent claim 30. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 15-29 and 32 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim.
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 14-15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buck et al. (Pat. No. 6,823,730) (hereafter Buck).
Regarding claim 14, Buck teaches a liquid level gauge comprising:
an input circuit (i.e., electrical wires 3) (see Fig. 1);
a sensor unit (i.e., fill level sensor 2 comprising a plurality of sensor fields 1) (see Fig. 1);
a discrimination device (i.e., selector switch 5) (see Fig. 1 and 5); and
a liquid level determination device (i.e., power supply and evaluation circuit 7 including a power supply circuit 8 and an evaluation circuit 9) (see Column 6, line 60, to Column 7, line 7),
wherein the sensor unit includes n columns (n≥3) of sensors in which electrode pairs are arranged in a liquid level detection direction, when a predetermined range in the liquid level detection direction is referred to as a region and each range obtained by dividing the region in the liquid level detection direction is referred to as a division region, each of the electrode pairs is positioned at a boundary of the region or at a boundary of the division region in the liquid level detection direction,
a sensor in a first column has a.sub.1 (a.sub.1>2) division regions when a measurement range of the liquid level gauge is considered to be a region (i.e., sensor fields 1 and combinations of sensor fields 1, such that two sensor fields 1 at a time are electrically connected to one another. Of the initial sixteen sensor fields, therefore, eight sensor fields 1 of twice the size, specifically twice the height, are implemented to be electrically active. It goes without saying that more than two sensor fields 1 can also be electrically connected to one another, specifically by several horizontal printed conductors 10 of several sensor fields 1 being connected to one vertical printed conductor 11) (see Column 7, line 35, to Column 9, line 32), a sensor in a second column has a.sub.1 regions whose ranges and numbers correspond to ranges and numbers of the division regions of the sensor in the first column, where each of the regions has a.sub.2 (a.sub.2≥2) division regions (i.e., each fill level sensor 2 has sixteen sensor fields 1, sixteen horizontally running printed conductors 10 and sixteen vertically running printed conductors 11. In the middle section shown in FIG. 1, one sensor field 1 at a time is connected to its vertical printed conductor 11 via a horizontal printed conductor 10. The uppermost sensor field 11 is connected via the uppermost horizontal printed conductor 10 to the vertical printed conductor 11, and only this one. The sensor field 1 which is the second when viewed from the top is connected via the second horizontal printed conductor 10 to the second vertical printed conductor 11 and only to this, and the lowermost sensor field 1 is connected via the lowermost horizontal printed conductor 10 to the vertical printed conductor 11 which is on the right edge and only to this one) (see Column 7, line 35, to Column 11, line 39), a sensor in an n-th column has regions whose number is obtained by multiplying numbers from a.sub.1 to a.sub.n−1 and whose ranges and numbers correspond to ranges and numbers of division regions of a sensor in an n−1-th column, where each of the regions has a.sub.n (a.sub.n≥2) division regions (i.e., in the right section of FIG. 1 has two sensor fields 1 connected to the vertical printed conductor 11 via two horizontal printed conductors 10. In this embodiment, therefore, two sensor fields 1 at a time are electrically connected to one another. Of the initial sixteen sensor fields, therefore, eight sensor fields 1 of twice the size, specifically twice the height, are implemented to be electrically active. It goes without saying that more than two sensor fields 1 can also be electrically connected to one another, specifically by several horizontal printed conductors 10 of several sensor fields 1 being connected to one vertical printed conductor 11) (see Column 7, line 35, to Column 9, line 32),
one ends of electrode pairs of all sensors are connected to the input circuit, the other end of each electrode pair of the sensor in the first column is connected to the discrimination device (see Fig. 1 and 5),
as for electrode pairs of the sensors in second and subsequent columns, the other ends of the electrode pairs located at boundaries of regions are connected in parallel with each other and are connected to the discrimination device and the other ends of the electrode pairs located at same boundaries of division regions in respective regions are connected in parallel with each other and are connected to the discrimination device (i.e., a selector switch 5 connected at its multipole side 4 to respective ends of the electrical wires 3 away from the sensor fields 1, and a power supply and evaluation circuit 7 connected to the monopole side 6 of the selector switch 5) (see Column 6, line 60, to Column 7, line 7),
the discrimination device discriminates a larger and smaller relationship of a plurality of detection values obtained from each sensor for each sensor (i.e., assigning electrically conductive shield 21 to the plurality of sensor fields 1 and/or the electrical wires 3 and/or the selector switch 5, specifically, a shield which is always at a potential which corresponds to the potential of the plurality of sensor fields 1, the electrical wires 3 and the selector switch 5. In this connection special importance is assigned to the measure of connecting the shield 21 via a current measurement circuit 23 to the plurality of sensor fields 1, the electrical wires 3 and the selector switch 5) (see Column 11, lines 15-52), and the liquid level determination device determines a liquid level based on discrimination of the discrimination device (i.e., the frequency of the power supply voltage is controlled by a microprocessor which intervenes at a control point 31, and that the gain of the evaluation circuit 9 of the power supply and evaluation circuit 7 can be controlled by a microprocessor which intervenes at a control point 32) (see Column 11, lines 15-52).
Regarding claim 15, Buck teaches that the electrode pairs detect capacitance between electrodes (i.e., each horizontally running printed conductor 10 on one side is connected to one sensor field 1 and on the other side to a vertically running printed conductor 11) (see Column 7, lines 7-22).
Regarding claim 17, Buck teaches that the electrode pairs detect a resistance value between electrodes (i.e., low-resistance non-active sensor fields 1 and high-resistance active sensor fields 1) (see Column 11, line 53, to Column 12, line 13).
Regarding claim 19, Buck teaches that the discrimination device includes a discrimination circuit for each sensor (i.e., switch 5) (see Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 20, Buck teaches that the discrimination device includes a switch, the switch being used for switching connection with each sensor, and a single discrimination circuit (i.e., switch 5) (see Fig. 5-6).
Claims 16, 18, 21-29 are objected to as being depended on the rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ihle (Pat. No. 10,969,264) (hereafter Ihle) in view of Buck et al. (Pat. No. 6,823,730) (hereafter Buck).
Regarding claim 30, Ihle teaches a sensor for locating a position of an interface between a first substance and a second substance (i.e., capacitive properties of the probe 16 change in dependence on the level due to the different dielectric properties of the medium 14 with respect to the medium located above it, typically air 18) (see Column 5, lines 17-29), the sensor comprising: K sensor blocks (i.e., a capacitance is measured by the measurement and evaluation unit 20 between the measurement electrodes 26, between groups of measurement electrodes 26, or between at least one measurement electrode 26 and an outer reference) (see Column 5, line 17, to Column 6, line 30); but does not explicitly teach the particular arrangement of the K sensor blocks and its electrode pairs, according to the claimed formulas.
Regarding the particular arrangement of the K sensor block and the electrode pairs, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the sensor blocks and the electrode pairs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 31, Ihle teaches that a first substance is a liquid (i.e., medium 14 can, for example, be any desired liquid such as coolants and lubricants, hydraulic oils, cleaning agents, laboratory chemicals, or wet chemistry in production lines, but also bulk material or granulate) (see Column 5, lines 17-29), and a second substance is a gas (i.e., capacitive properties of the probe 16 change in dependence on the level due to the different dielectric properties of the medium 14 with respect to the medium located above it, typically air 18) (see Column 5, lines 17-29).
Regarding claim 32, Ihle teaches that a normal direction of the M(1) planes is a vertical direction (i.e., probe 16 is dipped vertically into the container 12) (see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights