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 § 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.
Claim 26 and 29 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 claim 26, the claim recites the limitation "the repeating linear pattern" and “the grid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16 and 24, from which claim 26 depends, makes no recitation of “a linear pattern” or “a grid”, so it is unclear what particular linear pattern or grid is being referenced. Therefore claim 26 is unclear and thus indefinite. It is the examiner’s interpretation that claim 26 is intended to be dependent upon claim 25, which recites both a linear pattern and grid.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the limitation “ultrasonic measurements for determining the fill level height of multiple reaction tubes are carried out simultaneously, wherein the ultrasonic sensors are alternately activated for the measurement.”, which renders the claim unclear. It is unclear how the measurements of the multiple ultrasonic sensors are carried out both simultaneously and alternately. Therefore claim 29 is unclear and thus indefinite. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the ultrasonic measurements may either be carried out simultaneously or alternately.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk et al. (DE 102007043839 A1, “Woelk”) in view of Zahirovic (US 20210146326 A1, “Zahirovic”).
Regarding claim 16, Woelk discloses an arrangement of a tube-bundle reactor and a sensor device, the tube-bundle reactor comprises a bundle of vertically arranged reaction tubes, which are open on top through upper openings and are fillable with particles of a catalyst material (Fig. 1, [attached machine translation, pg. 10], tube bundle reactor (10) includes vertically aligned tubes (15) which include openings (19) at an upper end of each respective pipe. A filling device (50) is further provided for filling the pipes with a bulk material such as catalyst pellets.), wherein the ultrasonic sensor is designed to emit an ultrasonic signal from above into one of the reaction tubes and to receive the ultrasonic signal reflected in the reaction tube, ([attached machine translation, pg. 3-4], filling device includes an ultrasonic measuring device for determining the bed height of bulk material in one of the pipes. Measuring device is placed within the filling funnel in order to measure the distance of the surface of the bed of filling material in the tube to the reference point of the measuring device).
Woelk may not explicitly teach the sensor device comprises an ultrasonic sensor and an evaluation device; and the evaluation device is coupled with the ultrasonic sensor via a data connection and is designed to ascertain the distance of the surface of the particles of the catalyst material received by the one reaction tube to the ultrasonic sensor from the time-of-flight of the received ultrasonic signals and to ascertain a fill level height of the catalyst material in the reaction tube therefrom.
Zahirovich teaches the sensor device comprises an ultrasonic sensor and an evaluation device; and the evaluation device is coupled with the ultrasonic sensor via a data connection and is designed to ascertain the distance of the surface of the particles of the catalyst material received by the one reaction tube to the ultrasonic sensor from the time-of-flight of the received ultrasonic signals and to ascertain a fill level height of the catalyst material in the reaction tube therefrom ([0041], ultrasound sensor may communicate with operator computing device via a network and send various data to an operator including levelness of the surface and total height of loaded catalyst).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, to include the evaluation device of Zahirovic with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing the operator to monitor bulk density of the loaded catalyst as well as local density variation [0041].
Regarding claim 27, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 16 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahriovic and Fleury et al. (CN 109715302 A, “Fleury”).
Regarding claim 17, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic teaches the arrangement according to claim 16. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic may not explicitly teach the ultrasonic sensor comprises an ultrasound transducer head having a decoupling surface for emitting the ultrasonic signal and an adaptation layer is arranged on the decoupling surface for adapting the emission characteristic of the ultrasonic sensor to the geometry of the reaction tubes.
Fleury teaches the ultrasonic sensor comprises an ultrasound transducer head having a decoupling surface for emitting the ultrasonic signal and an adaptation layer is arranged on the decoupling surface for adapting the emission characteristic of the ultrasonic sensor to the geometry of the reaction tubes (Fig. 5, [attached machine translation, pg. 6], diverging lens includes a first and second layer close to the emitting face)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the emitting surface of Fleury is equivalent to a decoupling surface).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic to include the adaptation layer of Fleury with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of creating a laminated divergence structure that is easier to manufacture [attached machine translation, pg. 7].
Regarding claim 18, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic and Fleury teaches the arrangement according to claim 17. Fleury further teaches the thickness of the adaptation layer is greater in the center of the decoupling surface than at the edge(Fig. 5, [attached machine translation, pg. 7], diverging lens includes a first and second layer close to the emitting face)(Fig. 5 illustrates the first layer (41) being thicker in the center of the decoupling surface than at the edge).
Regarding claim 19, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic and Fleury the arrangement according to claim 17. Fleury further teaches the adaptation layer has a first film, which is tightly fastened on the decoupling surface(Fig. 5, [attached machine translation, pg. 7], diverging lens includes a first and second layer close to the emitting face)(Fig. 5 [attached machine translation, pg. 6], divergent lens is arranged on the ultrasonic transducer in front of the emitting surface).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahriovic and Al-Absi et al. (US 20110232381 A1, “Al-Absi”).
Regarding claim 21, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic teaches the arrangement according to claim 16. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic may not explicitly teach the sensor device has an indicator, which is designed to display an optical signal that is dependent on the ascertained fill level height of the evaluation device.
Al-Absi teaches the sensor device has an indicator, which is designed to display an optical signal that is dependent on the ascertained fill level height of the evaluation device ([0018], the height between the ultrasonic transducer and the surface of the liquid can be calculated based upon the measured time period. The liquid level is then displayed to the user on an external display.).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahriovic to include the display of Al-Absi with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of visually displaying the fill level of a container to a user [0018].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahirovic and Klenov et al. (EP 1374985 A1, “Klenov”).
Regarding claim 22, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic teaches the arrangement according to claim 16. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic may not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic sensor is fastened on a measuring carriage, which is attached on a rail system above the openings of the reaction tubes and is movable in a horizontal plane above the openings of the reaction tubes.
Klenov teaches the ultrasonic sensor is fastened on a measuring carriage, which is attached on a rail system above the openings of the reaction tubes and is movable in a horizontal plane above the openings of the reaction tubes ([attached machine translation, pg. 4], arrangement is equipped with a sensor that operates as a range finder. In order to load a plurality of tubes, the arrangement can be mounted on a portable carriage)(Fig. 1 illustrates the portable carriage with wheels that is moveable in a horizontal direction relative to the opening of the tubes. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the surface in which the portable carriage traverses is equivalent to a rail system).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic to include the portable carriage of Klenov with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing for the loading of a plurality of tubes [attached machine translation, pg. 4].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahirovic and Huang (US 20150101406 A1, “Huang”).
Regarding claim 24, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic teaches the arrangement according to claim 16. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic may not explicitly disclose the sensor device comprises multiple ultrasonic sensors.
Huang teaches the sensor device comprises multiple ultrasonic sensors ([0036] each sensor (114) is able to measure a distance between the sensor (120) and the catalyst bed. Type of sensor may be ultrasonic).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic to include the multiple sensors of Huang with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of obtaining multiple measurements between an ultrasonic sensor and a catalyst bed height [0036].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahirovic and Olbert et al. (US 20100063304 A1, “Olbert”).
Regarding claim 25, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic teaches the arrangement according to claim 16. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic may not explicitly teach the reaction tubes are arranged in the tube-bundle reactor in a grid, so that a repeating linear pattern results.
Olbert teaches the reaction tubes are arranged in the tube-bundle reactor in a grid, so that a repeating linear pattern results (Fig. 1, [0062], catalyst tubes are arranged in parallel to one another in the longitudinal direction of a reactor).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic to include the linear tube positioning of Olbert with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing the tool to be moved via the carrier arm to the plurality of tubes [0062]-[0064].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahirovic , Huang, and Klenov.
Regarding claim 26, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic and Huang teaches the arrangement according to claim 24. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic and Huang may not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic sensors are arranged on the measuring carriage so that they correspond to the repeating linear pattern of the grid of the reaction tubes.
Klenov teaches the ultrasonic sensors are arranged on the measuring carriage so that they correspond to the repeating linear pattern of the grid of the reaction tubes([attached machine translation, pg. 4], arrangement is equipped with a sensor that operates as a range finder. In order to load a plurality of tubes, the arrangement can be mounted on a portable carriage).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the arrangement of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic and Huang to include the portable carriage of Klenov with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing for the loading of a plurality of tubes [attached machine translation, pg. 4].
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woelk in view of Zahriovic and Woltring et al. (US 20120259560 A1, “Woltring”).
Regarding claim 30, Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic teaches the method according to claim 27. Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic may not explicitly teach a plurality of times-of-flight of emitted ultrasonic signals are received and stored in a measuring period for a reaction tube, the times- of-flight are compared in the evaluation device to a stored permitted time-of-flight interval, those times-of-flight are filtered out which lie outside the permitted time-of-flight interval, the fill level height of the catalyst material is ascertained from the permitted times-of-flight.
Woltring teaches a plurality of times-of-flight of emitted ultrasonic signals are received and stored in a measuring period for a reaction tube, the times- of-flight are compared in the evaluation device to a stored permitted time-of-flight interval, those times-of-flight are filtered out which lie outside the permitted time-of-flight interval, the fill level height of the catalyst material is ascertained from the permitted times-of-flight ([0028], time-of-flight module interprets data from the emitter in order to perform calculations corresponding to the time-of flight. Time-of flight, as well as known tank geometry, may be used to determine volume of liquid in tank. Threshold module may be configured to compare determined time-of-flight or volume of liquid stored in the tank to a specific threshold).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic sensing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Woelk, as modified in view of Zahirovic to include the thresholding of Woltring with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the fill level height of a container of a known geometry based on stored time-of-flight values [0028].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20, 23, and 28-29 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 as well as overcoming any relevant 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, Woelk, as modified in view of Fleury teaches the arrangement according to claim 19. Fleury further teaches the adaptation layer has a second film, which is smaller than the first film and is fastened on the side of the first film facing away from the decoupling surface in the center of the decoupling surface, so that the thickness of the adaptation layer is greater in the center of the decoupling surface than at the edge(Fig. 5, [attached machine translation, pg. 6], diverging lens includes a first and second layer close to the emitting face, however Fleury fails to teach the second layer being smaller than the first layer such that the thickness of the adaptation layer is greater in the center of the decoupling surface than at the edge. No other identified prior art teaches this limitation with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 23, Woelk discloses the arrangement according to claim 16. Woelk may not explicitly disclose the arrangement comprises an alignment device having light barrier sensors, which is designed to detect the relative location of the ultrasonic sensor to the reaction tube in a horizontal plane.
Klenov teaches the arrangement comprises an alignment device having light barrier sensors, which is designed to detect the relative location of the ultrasonic sensor to the reaction tube in a horizontal plane (Fig. 1, [attached machine translation, pg. 4], light-optical pair may be attached to the gutter and act as a particle counter (9) that counts the number of particles that pass through the channel and into the tube. However the particle counter of Klenov is not positioned such that it could ensure the centralized location of the ultrasonic sensor above the opening of a reaction tube. Additionally, the light-barrier particle counter of Fleury does not function in order to determine sensor alignment, rather it functions to determine a quantity of catalyst that has been loaded into a tube. No other identified prior art teaches this limitation either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine)
Regarding claim 28, Woelk discloses the method according to claim 27. Woelk may not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic sensor, which is fastened on a measuring carriage, is moved on a rail system by means of guide rollers in a horizontal plane above the openings of the reaction tubes and the relative horizontal location of the ultrasonic sensor to the reaction tube is measured by means of light barrier sensors and the ultrasonic sensor is aligned so that the ultrasonic sensor is located centrally above an opening of a reaction tube.
Klenov teaches the ultrasonic sensor, which is fastened on a measuring carriage, is moved on a rail system by means of guide rollers in a horizontal plane above the openings of the reaction tubes and the relative horizontal location of the ultrasonic sensor to the reaction tube is measured by means of light barrier sensors and the ultrasonic sensor is aligned so that the ultrasonic sensor is located centrally above an opening of a reaction tube. ([attached machine translation, pg. 4], arrangement is equipped with a sensor that operates as a range finder. In order to load a plurality of tubes, the arrangement can be mounted on a portable carriage)(Fig. 1 illustrates the portable carriage with wheels that is moveable in a horizontal direction relative to the opening of the tubes. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the surface in which the portable carriage traverses is equivalent to a rail system)(Fig. 1, [attached machine translation, pg. 4], light-optical pair may be attached to the gutter and act as a particle counter (9) that counts the number of particles that pass through the channel and into the tube. However the particle counter of Klenov is not positioned such that it could ensure the centralized location of the ultrasonic sensor above the opening of a reaction tube. Additionally, the light-barrier particle counter of Fleury does not function in order to determine sensor alignment, rather it functions to determine a quantity of catalyst that has been loaded into a tube. No other identified prior art teaches this limitation either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine)
Regarding claim 29, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Cota (US 20190030505 A1, “Cota”) which discloses a device for filling a tube with particulate filling material
Dialer et al. (US 20070224095 A1, “Dialer”) which discloses a charging device for a tubular reactor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645