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 Objections
Claims 16, 23, 25, and 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, line 7, “microwave beams” should be changed to --microwave beam--.
Regarding claim 23, line 1, “(3)” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 25, line 7, “fluid sensor level” should be changed to --fluid level sensor--.
Regarding claim 27, line 8, “microwave beams” should be changed to --microwave beam--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-30 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 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 17-26, they are dependent on claim 16.
The term “similar” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “similar thermal expansion coefficient” is rendered indefinite by the usage of the term “similar”.
Regarding claim 27, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 28-30, they are dependent on claim 27.
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 16-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vogt et al. (US 2014/0047917 A1) (hereinafter Vogt).
As best understood regarding claim 16, Vogt teaches a container [container 4] capable of containing pressurized liquid gas [stable up to a pressure of 40 bar] (see Claim 9), having an opening leading from outside to inside of the container [4] for mounting a microwave fluid level sensor [level measuring system 15] on the outside of the container over the opening and configured to emit a microwave beam towards the inside of the container [microwave radiation radiated as a measurement signal from antenna 17] and to receive a microwave beam reflected from the surface of the liquid inside the container [microwave signals reflected by the surface of the medium 5 back through window 1 to be received by antenna 17], wherein the container further comprises a lid [microwave window 1 having barrier 8 and lens 9] closing the opening, wherein said lid is made of a plastic material capable of transmitting at least a part of said microwave beam [barrier 8 composed of a glass, a ceramic, or a plastic and is permeable to microwaves] (Para [0026-0034], see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the opening is equipped with a flange for mounting a fluid level sensor and said lid is mounted on said flange [barrier is sealed, flush with the surrounding element - for example, the flange] (Para [0013], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lid is tightly sealed [sealed] (Para [0013], see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lid is made of a thermoformable plastic, a resin, or a polymer based composite reinforced with a mineral or synthetic material [windows are preferably composed of a glass or a ceramic, for example, meta-glass, quartz glass, or borosilicate glass; or, if the necessary compressive strength is reduced, of plastics, such as polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyetheretherketone (PEEK)] (Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lid is made of a modified polyamide [at least one lens partially composed of a plastic. Examples of appropriate plastics are: polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyamide (PA)] (Para [0014]).
Regarding claim 22, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lid is made of polyaryletherketone (PAEK) [windows are preferably composed of plastics, such as polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyetheretherketone (PEEK)] (Para [0005]).
Regarding claim 23, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lid is partially made of metal [barrier enclosed or sealed in a metal ring or another metallic border] (Para [0013], see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 24, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lid has a flat bottom surface or a convex spherical bottom surface (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 25, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a microwave fluid level sensor [level-measuring system 15] mounted on the outside of the container over the opening (see Fig. 1) and configured for emitting a microwave beam towards the inside of the container [microwave radiation radiated as a measurement signal from antenna 17] and for receiving a microwave beam reflected from the surface of the liquid inside the container [microwave signals reflected by the surface of the medium 5 back through window 1 to be received by antenna 17], and mounting means configured for assembling and disassembling the microwave fluid level sensor from the container without removing the lid [housing 19 and associated components removable from window 1 without having to open the process space], wherein said lid closes the opening in the container and is located between the fluid level sensor and the inside of the container (Para [0026-0034], see Figs. 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt as applied to claim 16 above.
As best understood regarding claim 20, Vogt as applied to claim 16 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the lid is made of a plastic material having similar thermal expansion coefficient as the container in working temperature range of LPG or LNG. Vogt additionally teaches the lid is made of a plastic material having various thermal expansion coefficients [windows are preferably composed of plastics, such as polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyetheretherketone (PEEK)] and that conditions inside the container can have very low or very high temperatures (Para [0005]). 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 Vogt such to choose a material for the container to be similar to the plastic material of the lid, in order to ensure that the entirety of the container and lid combination is capable of withstanding conditions of the liquid inside. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Dieterle et al. (US 2021/0318159 A1) (hereinafter Dieterle).
Regarding claim 26, Vogt as applied to claim 25 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the microwave fluid level sensor is configured for analyzing the received microwave beam using an algorithm. Dieterle teaches a microwave fluid level sensor configured for analyzing received reflected microwaves using an algorithm [evaluation circuitry having program code] (Para [0018]). 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 Vogt with Dieterle such that the fluid level sensor is configured for analyzing the received microwave beam using an algorithm, in order to automate the fluid level detection.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt in view of Dieterle.
As best understood regarding claim 27, Vogt teaches a liquid level measuring system, comprising a container [container 4] capable of containing pressurized liquid gas [stable up to a pressure of 40 bar] (see Claim 9), having an opening leading from outside to inside of the container [4] for mounting a microwave fluid level sensor [level measuring system 15] on the outside of the container over the opening and configured to emit a microwave beam towards the inside of the container [microwave radiation radiated as a measurement signal from antenna 17] and to receive a microwave beam reflected from the surface of the liquid inside the container [microwave signals reflected by the surface of the medium 5 back through window 1 to be received by antenna 17], wherein the container further comprises a lid [microwave window 1 having barrier 8 and lens 9] closing the opening, wherein said lid is made of a plastic material capable of transmitting at least a part of said microwave beam [barrier 8 composed of a glass, a ceramic, or a plastic and is permeable to microwaves] (Para [0026-0034], see Figs. 1-3). Vogt fails to teach a data logging device. Dieterle teaches a microwave fluid level sensor system comprising a data logging device [evaluation circuitry having memory devices for data and/or program code] (Para [0018]). 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 Vogt with Dieterle such to further comprise a data logging device, in order to automate the fluid level detection.
Regarding claim 28, Vogt in view of Dieterle as applied to claim 27 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising a display. Dieterle additionally teaches a display (Para [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Vogt in view of Dieterle such to further comprise a display, in order to display a measured value.
Regarding claim 29, Vogt in view of Dieterle as applied to claim 27 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising a power source [level-measuring system inherently requires a power source to operate] (Vogt Para [0027]).
Regarding claim 30, Vogt in view of Dieterle as applied to claim 27 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the power source comprises a photovoltaic cell, wherein the photovoltaic cell is a silicon-based cell or a perovskite-based cell. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art to utilize photovoltaic solar cells as power sources in liquid level measuring systems. 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 Vogt in view of Dieterle such that the power source comprises a photovoltaic cell, wherein the photovoltaic cell is a silicon-based cell or a perovskite-based cell, in order to provide a self-sufficient power source.
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