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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022110191.6, filed on 04/27/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s submission for Domestic Benefit/National State Information under 35 U.S.C. 371 for PCT/EP2023/057911 with filing date 03/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 35 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Fill Level Measuring Device. The Specification lacks any mention of a “Fill Level Meter.”
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Inconsistent reference numerals (element 11 vs. 12). Reference numeral 12 designates the transmitting/receiving unit ([0046]; Figs. 1–2). However, [0030] refers to “its first end region 12,” and [0031] and [0037] refer to “the antenna arrangement 12,” whereas the antenna arrangement is element 11 in the drawings. The drawings (Figs. 1–2) consistently show 11 = antenna arrangement and 12 = transmitting/receiving unit, so the specification text is internally inconsistent.
Inconsistent nomenclature for element 113. Element 113 is called “radar bundling optics” in [0038] but “beam bundling means” in the reference-character list ([0050]) and in the claims (claims 17–19, 22). A single, consistent term should be used.
Extraneous / unexplained numerals. The specification appears to contain stray numerals lacking antecedent in the reference-character list — e.g., “PECVD 8” ([0019]) and “the radar propagation velocity of the 19 appropriate speed of light” ([0030]). Clarification or correction is required.
Material lists not consistent. [0017] lists the cap materials as “PE, PFA, PEEK or PTFE,” while [0034] lists “PE, PEEK or PTFE” (omitting PFA). Conforming the lists is suggested for consistency with claim 12.
Acronym lacks definition. [0034] list the cap materials as “PE, PFA, PEEK or PTFE,” while there is no definition of the acronyms. Prior to the first use of an acronym, that acronym should be defined for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “…toward the fill substance, and vice versa.” The phrase “and vice versa” is informal language. The reciprocal (receive) path should be recited affirmatively (e.g., “and, on receipt, are changed in direction from toward the fill substance back to along the tube axis”).
Claim 11 recites transmitting “the radar signals” (plural), then “after reflection of the radar signal” (singular), then receiving “corresponding received signals,” and finally determining the fill level based on “the received radar signals.” The shift between singular and plural, and between “received signals” and “received radar signals,” can lead to clarity issues.
Claim 14 recites “…the beam direction changer is adhered as a metal substrate.” The phrasing is grammatically awkward; “is a metal substrate adhered in the cap” (or similar) is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"beam bundling means" in claims 17-19, and 22.
Prong A: uses the word “means.”
Prong B: modified by functional language — “beam bundling”; [0020] confirms it “assumes the same function of a bundling beam direction changer.”
Prong C: no sufficient structure is recited in the claim (only location: “arranged within the tube on the tube axis”).
Corresponding structure: a radar bundling optics (element 113) — e.g., a lens-shaped body of PE/PFA/PEEK/PTFE, optionally with an asymmetric aperture, arranged in the tube on beam axis A ([0020], [0038]; Fig. 2). Adequate corresponding structure is disclosed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 22 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the beam bundling means" in "the beam direction changer, or the beam bundling means, is adapted … coincides with an outer contour of the beam direction changer, or the beam bundling means.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 22 depends from claim 11. Claim 11 does not recite a beam bundling means (first introduced in claim 17). Claim 22 nevertheless recites “the beam direction changer, or the beam bundling means, is adapted … coincides with an outer contour of the beam direction changer, or the beam bundling means.” Because claim 11 provides no “beam bundling means,” the recitation lacks antecedent basis and claim 22 is indefinite. Suggested correction: depend claim 22 from claim 17 (or otherwise establish proper antecedent basis for the bundling-means alternative).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation "the cap has a thickness in a region of exiting and entering radar signals", and the claim also recites "equal to a whole numbered multiple of a half- wavelength of the radar signal" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The Specification notes that a frequency band [0003] may be bands at 2, 26, 79, and 120 GHz, and even FMCW, so “a half-wavelength of the radar signal” is not single-valued. Applicant should clarify the reference frequency (e.g., a center/operating frequency) so the claimed thickness condition has definite metes and bounds.
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.
Claims 11, 17, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2002/0059828 A1) in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/189985 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) teaches:
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: A radar based, fill level measuring device for measuring a fill level of a fill substance in a container, the measuring device comprising: ([0001]; claim 1: “apparatus for determining the filling level of a filling material in a container having a signal production unit which produces measurement signals, having at least one antenna which transmits the measurement signals in the direction of the surface of the filling material and which receives the measurement signals reflected on the surface of the filling material, and having a control/evaluation unit which uses the delay time of the measurement signals to determine the filling level of the filling material in the container”),
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: a connection by which the fill level measuring device is securable at a lateral opening of the container; ([0006], [0040]; claim 1: “an opening (6) is provided in the upper region of one sidewall (5) of the container (4)”; [0040]: “Owing to the dimensioning of the elongated element 8, it is possible to pass the antenna 7 through the opening 6 into the interior of the container 4”; the flange 10 firmly mounts the apparatus at the sidewall opening 6, constituting a connection securable at a lateral opening),
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: a tubular antenna arrangement, including: a linear tube, having a tube axis, which is extendable through the container opening; ([0013]; claim 3: “the antenna (7) is essentially an elongated element (8) whose external dimensions in the longitudinal direction are greater, and in the transverse direction are less, than the internal dimensions of the opening (6)”; [0040]: “it is possible to pass the antenna 7 through the opening 6 into the interior of the container 4”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the elongated element 8 is a tubular antenna arrangement having a linear tube; the longitudinal axis of the elongated element is the tube axis; and the elongated element extends through the lateral container opening,
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: a transparent cap, which is transparent to radar signals and is configured to media-tightly close a first end region of the antenna arrangement, which projects into the container in a secured state of the antenna arrangement; ([0018], [0044-0045], [0048]: “In order to protect the antenna and/or the sensor of the apparatus according to the invention against the influence of a corrosive filling material, one refinement of the apparatus according to the invention proposes that the additional sensor and/or the antennas be provided with a protection layer, in particular with a dielectric protection layer, at least in the region which projects into the interior of the container”; [0044-0045]: “the elongated element 8 is made of a conductive material, in particular of a metal… the measurement signals are transmitted and received via a dielectric window 13 provided in the metallic sheath”; [0048]: “the elongated element 8 together with an integrated antenna 7 is arranged in a protection tube 22 composed of a dielectric material. The protection tube 22 is firmly mounted in the opening 6 via a flange 25”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Muller’s dielectric window (13) embedded in the metallic sheath, or alternatively the dielectric protection tube (22), constitutes a transparent cap: each is transparent to radar/measurement signals, encloses or closes the first end region of the antenna arrangement that projects into the container, and protects the internal components from the fill substance (media-tight closure per [0018]),
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (’985) teaches: a beam direction changer arranged in the cap such that, in the secured state, the radar signals are changed in direction off the tube axis and hence toward the fill substance, and vice versa; ([0097-0100]: “The turning unit 155 may have a chamber 156 and a reflector 157. The chamber 156 may be connected to the waveguide 153, and may extend in the direction of the second center axis C2 that forms an angle with the first center axis C1 of the waveguide 153. For example, the first central axis C1 and the second central axis C2 may form a right angle. The reflector 157 may be flat. The reflector 157 may change only the propagation direction without affecting the characteristics of the electromagnetic wave”). In the combination, Park’s direction changing unit (chamber 156 and flat reflector 157) is placed at the first end of Muller’s elongated element within Muller’s dielectric cap; the flat reflector changes the direction of radar signals off the tube axis toward the fill substance as claimed,
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: a transmitting/receiving unit arranged at an opposite second end region of the antenna arrangement and configured to: transmit the radar signals along the tube axis to the beam direction changer; after reflection of the radar signal from the surface of the fill substance, receive corresponding received signals via the beam direction changer; and determine the fill level based on the received radar signals ([0001], [0021], [0040], [0042], Claim 1: “a signal production unit which produces measurement signals… a control/evaluation unit which uses the delay time of the measurement signals to determine the filling level”; [0040]: “the electronics section 11, that is to say the signal production unit and the control/evaluation unit, being located outside the container 4”; [0021]: “the measurement signals are passed to the antenna from the signal production unit via a conductive element. The conductive element is, for example, a coaxial cable, a waveguide or a hollow conductor”). The signal production unit and control/evaluation unit together constitute the transmitting/receiving unit at the second end region outside the container; the waveguide or hollow conductor carries signals along the tube axis from the T/R unit to the first end where they reach the beam direction changer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Park’s fixed direction changing unit (chamber 156, flat reflector 157) at the first end of Muller’s elongated element, within Muller’s dielectric protection cap, in place of Muller’s pivoting rod antenna mechanism. One would have been motivated to do so because both Muller and Park address the same objective of directing radar signals from an outside-mounted T/R unit through a tube toward a fill substance surface, and Park’s fixed flat reflector eliminates the moving parts of Muller’s pivoting mechanism ([0045]: “a rod antenna 14 which… is rotated through 90° by means of the pivoting mechanism 15”), providing a simpler and more reliable direction-changing solution requiring no mechanical actuation after installation; Muller’s own dielectric protection layer and dielectric window teachings ([0018], [0044-0045]) confirm the intent to enclose and protect the first end region in a dielectric element, and placing Park’s flat reflector within that dielectric enclosure is straightforward. There is a reasonable expectation of success because flat reflectors for 90° signal redirection in millimeter-wave waveguides are well-established, Muller provides the elongated-element architecture into which Park’s direction changing unit is incorporated, and Muller’s dielectric protection cap supplies the transparent enclosure needed to house the reflector at the first end.
Regarding Claim 17, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 11.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (’985) teaches: further comprising a beam bundling means arranged within the tube on the tube axis ([0091-0096]: “The wavefront converter 154 may be provided between the transition unit 152 and the waveguide 153, and may convert the electromagnetic wave to have a uniform phase”; “the wavefront converting unit 154 may collect the electromagnetic waves input thereto, and thus, the wavefront converting unit 154 may help the electromagnetic wave go straight without spreading when propagating along the waveguide 153”). Park’s wavefront converting unit 154 is arranged within the waveguide (tube) on the propagation axis (tube axis) and collects and collimates the electromagnetic wave, constituting a beam bundling means within the tube on the tube axis under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate Park’s wavefront converting unit in the tube of the Muller/Park combination to reduce tube-wall reflections and improve beam collimation in the narrow lateral installation. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Park demonstrates the wavefront converting unit as operative within the waveguide in the same level measurement context.
Regarding Claim 19, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 17.
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: wherein the beam bundling means has an asymmetric aperture such that the transmitted radar signal has an increased bundling toward the container interior surface in the secured state of the antenna arrangement ([0013], [0025-0026]; claim 4: “the antenna (7) is a leaky waveguide (19), a ridge waveguide, a Yagi antenna (18) or a horn antenna (16) with a symmetrical or asymmetrical aperture”; [0025]: “FIG. 3 shows an embodiment of the apparatus according to the invention having an asymmetric horn antenna”). FIG. 3a of Muller shows a cross-section of the asymmetric horn antenna 8 having a non-circular cross-section, confirming that the beam bundling means has an asymmetric aperture that provides directional bundling toward the container interior surface in the lateral installation.
Regarding Claim 22, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 11.
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: wherein the beam direction changer, or the beam bundling means, is adapted for the transmitting/receiving unit such that a −10 dB lobe width of the transmitted radar signal coincides with an outer contour of the beam direction changer, or the beam bundling means ([0020]: “In order to ensure optimum transmission and optimum reception of the measurement signals, the antenna is arranged in the outer housing such that it can rotate or can pivot about its longitudinal axis in the outer housing. It can thus be adjusted with respect to the cutout described above”). Arranging the T/R unit and beam direction changer/bundling means such that the −10 dB lobe boundary of the transmitted signal coincides with the outer contour of the direction changer or bundling means is the standard microwave engineering criterion for achieving the optimum illumination efficiency and minimum beam spillover referenced by Muller et al. (’828). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to apply this well-known −10 dB illumination criterion when designing the combined system.
Regarding Claim 23, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 11.
Muller et al. (’828) teaches: wherein the transmitting/receiving unit is arranged outside of the container in the secured state of the antenna arrangement ([0040]: “the electronics section 11, that is to say the signal production unit and the control/evaluation unit, being located outside the container 4”).
Claims 12, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2002/0059828 A1) in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/189985 A1) and further in view of Kienzle et al. (US 2019/0145813 A1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, claims 12 and 18 depend from claims 11 and 17, respectively, and each recite the same additional material limitation applied to different components. They are grouped; the analysis for Claim 12 is presented below and Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons applied to the beam bundling means of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 12, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 11.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach the material composition of the transparent cap, but Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches: wherein the cap is made as a single piece of PE, PFA, PEEK, or PTFE material ([0009]: “the potential isolation consists of an isolating plastics material such as PTFE, PFA, PP, PVDF or PEEK”; [0038]: “This potential isolation is a for example integral device made of isolating material such as PTFE, PFA, PP, PVDF or PEEK”). The potential isolation of Kienzle et al. (’813) is a radar-transparent dielectric element interposed in the waveguide that transmits the radar signal to the antenna ([0008]: “The two passages are permeable to the transmission signal”), corresponding to the claimed transparent cap; it is formed as a single integral piece of PFA, PEEK, or PTFE. Per MPEP 2173.05(h), where a claim recites alternatives in the form “A, B, C, or D,” the prior art need only teach a single alternative to meet the limitation; Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches three of the four recited alternatives.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the transparent cap of the Muller/Park combination as a single piece of PTFE, PFA, or PEEK as taught by Kienzle et al. (’813). One would have been motivated to do so because Muller et al. (’828) requires the first-end dielectric element to be both transparent to the radar signal and resistant to the fill substance ([0018]: “protect the antenna… against the influence of a corrosive filling material… with a dielectric protection layer”), and Kienzle et al. (’813) identifies PTFE, PFA, and PEEK as the recognized dielectric materials that satisfy precisely these requirements in a fill level measurement waveguide, while a single-piece (integral) construction eliminates joints that would otherwise compromise the media-tight seal and introduce reflective discontinuities in the signal path. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Kienzle et al. (’813) demonstrates these same materials, formed as a one-piece integral element, performing the identical radar-transparent dielectric isolation function in a directly analogous fill level measurement waveguide assembly.
Regarding Claim 20, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 11.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches: the cap is configured to be secured on the tube with a snap connection ([0021]: “a snap connection means is provided which is designed for releasably connecting the first waveguide portion to the potential isolation. This snap connection means may be designed in the form of an annular groove in the first waveguide portion in combination with an annular element of the potential isolation that is designed to snap into the groove when the potential isolation is pushed into the first waveguide portion”; [0045]: “A snap connection 112 may be provided, comprising a plurality of separate or one or more annular snap hook(s) which snap(s) into corresponding recesses or into an annular groove when the potential isolation is pushed completely into the first waveguide portion”; claim 10: “a snap connection arrangement releasably connecting the first waveguide portion to the potential isolation”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the potential isolation (103) of Kienzle et al. (’813) is a radar-transparent plastic cap element releasably secured to the first waveguide portion (tube) by a snap connection, directly corresponding to the claimed snap connection securing the cap to the tube. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to secure the transparent cap of the Muller/Park combination to the tube using a snap connection as taught by Kienzle et al. (’813), since Kienzle et al. (’813) demonstrates snap connections as a known and effective means for releasably attaching a radar-transparent plastic element to a waveguide tube in fill level measurement devices. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Kienzle et al. (’813) demonstrates the snap connection as operative in a directly analogous fill level measurement waveguide assembly.
Regarding Claim 21, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 20.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches: the snap connection is configured so as to engage an outside of the tube ([0021]: “an annular groove in the first waveguide portion in combination with an annular element of the potential isolation that is designed to snap into the groove when the potential isolation is pushed into the first waveguide portion”; [0045]: “annular snap hook(s) which snap(s) into corresponding recesses or into an annular groove when the potential isolation is pushed completely into the first waveguide portion”). The annular groove is formed in the surface of the first waveguide portion (tube), and the annular snap hooks of the potential isolation (cap) engage that groove, such that the snap connection engages the tube as claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the snap connection of the Muller/Park/Kienzle combination to engage an outside of the tube as taught by Kienzle et al. (’813). One would have been motivated to do so because engaging the snap hooks against the outer surface of the tube, while the cap is pushed onto the tube end, keeps the snap features clear of the interior signal path so as not to obstruct or reflect the radar signal propagating within the tube, and Kienzle et al. (’813) demonstrates this exact outer-engaging annular snap arrangement in a fill level measurement waveguide for that purpose. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Kienzle et al. (’813) demonstrates the outer-engaging snap connection as operative for releasably securing a radar-transparent dielectric cap to a waveguide tube in a directly analogous fill level measurement assembly.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2002/0059828 A1) in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/189985 A1) and further in view of Kienzle et al. (US 2019/0145813 A1) and Yurchenko, Altintaş & Nosich, “Numerical optimization of a cylindrical reflector-in-radome antenna system,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 668–673 (Apr. 1999).
Regarding Claim 13, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Kienzle et al. (’813) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 12.
Muller et al. (’828), Park et al. (’985), and Kienzle et al. (’813) do not explicitly teach wherein the cap has a thickness in a region of exiting and entering radar signals equal to a whole numbered multiple of a half-wavelength of the radar signal conveyed through the material. However, the half-wavelength radome thickness condition recited in Claim 13 is a long-established and well-known principle of antenna engineering. The peer-reviewed literature documents this principle as a settled “rule-of-thumb” predating the effective filing date by decades. See Yurchenko, Altintaş & Nosich, “Numerical optimization of a cylindrical reflector-in-radome antenna system,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 668–673 (Apr. 1999), which states on Pg. 668: “A well-known engineering “rule-of-thumb” tells that the radome thickness should be taken as 1/2 of the wavelength in the radome material, to minimize the distortions.” The physical basis is that, when the dielectric wall thickness is an integer multiple of the half-wavelength in the material, the round trip of the wave within the wall produces a 360° phase shift that cancels the reflection at the first interface, rendering the wall substantially reflectionless and thereby minimizing insertion loss in the region of exiting and entering radar signals.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the thickness of the transparent cap of the Muller/Park/Kienzle combination, in the region of exiting and entering radar signals, equal to a whole numbered multiple of the half-wavelength of the radar signal in the cap material. One would have been motivated to do so because Kienzle et al. (’813) requires the dielectric cap to pass the transmission signal unimpeded ([0008]: “allow said signal to pass through unimpeded or at least largely unimpeded”), and the half-wavelength matching condition is the recognized means of achieving that result, as documented in the IEEE literature cited above. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the half-wavelength condition is an established, quantitatively predictable design rule grounded in well-understood electromagnetic theory and routinely applied to radar-transparent dielectric windows.
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 2002/0059828 A1) in view of Park et al. (WO 2019/189985 A1) and further in view of Motzer et al. (US 2007/0115196 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Motzer (’196) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 11.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (’985) teaches that the beam direction changer is a flat reflective surface ([0100]: “The reflector 157 may be flat. The reflector 157 may change only the propagation direction without affecting the characteristics of the electromagnetic wave”) but does not specify the material or construction of the reflector.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach the construction of the beam direction changer, but Motzer (’196) teaches: wherein the beam direction changer is a metal coating, or wherein the beam direction changer is adhered as a metal substrate ([0005-0006]: “metallised plastic antenna comprising an antenna body, made of a plastic material, with an inside, wherein the inside of the antenna body comprises a metallisation for conducting electromagnetic waves”; [0020]: “stainless steel may be used as a coating material; however, other materials may also be possible, for example mixtures or alloys comprising aluminium, copper, nickel, tin or chrome”). Per MPEP 2173.05(h), the prior art need only teach one of the recited alternatives; Motzer (’196) teaches the metal coating alternative.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Park’s flat reflector as a metal coating on a surface of the cap in the Muller/Park combination as taught by Motzer (’196). One would have been motivated to do so because the combination requires a radar-reflective surface within a plastic dielectric cap to redirect the radar signal, and Motzer (’196) teaches that applying a metal coating to a plastic body is the established means of providing an electromagnetic-wave-reflecting surface on a plastic component in fill level radar antennas, yielding a lightweight, low-cost reflector integrally formed on the plastic cap rather than a separately fabricated metal part. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Motzer (’196) demonstrates metal coatings on plastic antenna bodies conducting and reflecting electromagnetic waves as operative in fill level radar applications, the same context as the claimed device.
Regarding Claim 15, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Motzer (’196) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 14.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Motzer (’196) teaches: wherein the metal coating is deposited by sputtering or plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) ([0018]: “metallisation of the inside of the antenna body has been applied as a high-vacuum vapour-deposit layer”; [0037]: “metallisation involves a step selected from the group comprising varnish coating, high-vacuum vapour depositing, and chemical electroplating”). High-vacuum vapour depositing as taught by Motzer (’196) is a physical vapor deposition process encompassing sputtering. Per MPEP 2173.05(h), the prior art need only teach one of the recited alternatives; Motzer (’196) teaches the sputtering alternative.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the metal coating of the beam direction changer by sputtering as taught by Motzer (’196). One would have been motivated to do so because the combination calls for a metallic coating on a plastic dielectric cap, and Motzer (’196) identifies high-vacuum vapour deposition as an established method for applying such metallisation to a plastic antenna body, providing a uniform, well-adhered conductive layer suitable for reflecting the radar signal. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Motzer (’196) demonstrates high-vacuum vapour-deposited metallisation as operative on plastic fill level radar antenna components, and sputtering is a standard, predictable physical vapor deposition technique for metallising plastic substrates.
Regarding Claim 16, Muller et al. (’828) in view of Park et al. (’985) in view of Motzer (’196) teaches the measuring device according to Claim 14.
Muller et al. (’828) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (’985) teaches: wherein the metal substrate is planar ([0100]: “The reflector 157 may be flat”). Park’s flat reflector, implemented as a metal coating or adhered metal substrate per the combination with Motzer (’196) established for Claim 14, is planar by virtue of Park’s express teaching that the reflector is flat.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the metal substrate of the beam direction changer as a planar surface as taught by Park et al. (’985). One would have been motivated to do so because Park et al. (’985) teaches that a flat reflector changes only the propagation direction of the radar signal without affecting its characteristics ([0100]: “The reflector 157 may change only the propagation direction without affecting the characteristics of the electromagnetic wave”), so a planar reflecting surface achieves the required 90° redirection of Muller et al. (‘828) while preserving signal fidelity. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Park et al. (’985) expressly demonstrates a flat reflector performing the direction-changing function in the same millimeter-wave level measurement context.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights