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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 11/13/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract contains claim language (i.e “means”).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
Regarding claims 13, 14, 18, and 19 the recitations, “switching means”, discrimination means” and “addition means” are being interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-30 of copending Application No. 18/876,382 (reference application) (application ‘382 hereinafter) in view of Ichikawa et al (US 20250207967 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 13 application ‘382 teaches an input circuit, a sensor part, an adjustment part, switching means, discrimination means, and liquid level determination means, wherein the sensor part includes a plurality of electrode pairs arranged in a liquid level detection direction, the plurality of electrode pairs are divided into n groups, the i-th (i=1, 2, ..., n) group is constituted with an electrode pair at the 2i-1(2k-1)-th (k is a natural number from i to 2"-') position from a lowermost position in the liquid level detection direction, one ends of all the electrode pairs are connected to the input circuit, the other ends belonging to the same group are connected to each other in parallel and connected to the switching means, the discrimination means discriminates a larger and smaller relationship between a detection value obtained by the i-th group and a detection value obtained by a group that is a combination from the (i+1)-th group to the n-th group for each of i=1, 2, ..., n-1 and further discriminates a larger and smaller relationship between a detection value obtained by the n-th group and a detection value obtained by the adjustment part, the switching means sequentially switches connection between the groups and the discrimination means so as to enable discrimination by the discrimination means, and the liquid level determination means determines a liquid level based on the discrimination by the discrimination means. (Claim 12)
Regarding claim 14 application ‘382 teaches the adjustment part functions so that two detection values for which a larger and smaller relationship is to be discriminated by the discrimination means always become values different from each other. (Claim 13)
Regarding claim 15 application ‘382 teaches a plurality of the adjustment parts are provided, and the adjustment part to be caused to function is switched according to a group to which the discrimination means is connected. (Claim 14)
Regarding claims 16 & 17 application ‘382 does not explicitly teach the electrode pairs detect a resistance / capacitance value between electrodes. Ichikawa et al (US 20250207967 A1). Ichikawa et al teaches electrode pairs detect a resistance / capacitance value between electrodes. (Claims 15 and 17)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of level gauges before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus as disclosed by application ‘382 with electrodes that detect a resistance / capacitance value between electrodes as taught by Ichikawa et al for the purpose of accurately monitoring liquid fill levels.
Regarding claim 18 application ‘382 teaches a C/V conversion part that converts capacitance into a voltage and inputs the voltage to the switching means is provided between each group and the switching means, and addition means that enables the discrimination by the discrimination means is provided between the switching means and the discrimination means. (Claims 18-20)
Regarding claim 19 application ‘382 teaches an A/D conversion part that converts the detection value into a digital value is provided between the switching means and the discrimination means. (Claims 18-20)
Regarding claim 20 application ‘382 teaches K is a predetermined integer that satisfies 2<K, n(j) is a predetermined integer that satisfies 2 < n(j) for any j E {x E N:1 ≤x ≤ K}, and N is a set of all positive integers, wherein the E pairs of electrodes are placed in E planes in order according to an order relation of elements of a set {x E N: 1 ≤ x ≤ E}, the E planes not coinciding with each other and being parallel to each other, for any p E {x E N: 1 ≤x≤E-1}, ≤ a p-th pair of electrodes among the E pairs of electrodes has one electrode connected to an s(p)-th conducting line among the L conducting lines and the other electrode connected to an L-th conducting line among the L conducting lines, where = n(0) = 1, W(r), a k-th set W(k) for any k E {x E N 1 ≤ X ≤ K} is given by a (K+1)-th set W(K+1) is an empty set, an E-th pair of electrodes among the E pairs of electrodes has one electrode connected to an (L-1)-th conducting line among the L conducting lines and the other electrode connected to the L-th conducting line among the L conducting lines, and the conducting line selector is configured to select any one conducting line among the L conducting lines except the L-th conducting line. (Claim 21)
Regarding claim 21 application ‘382 teaches E pairs of electrodes, L conducting lines, and a conducting line selector, where X K K is a predetermined integer that satisfies 2 ≤ K, n(j) is a predetermined integer that satisfies 2≤ n(j) for any j E {x E N: 1 ≤ ≤ K}, and N is a set of all positive integers, wherein the E pairs of electrodes are placed in E planes in order according to an order relation of elements of a set ≤ ≤ the E planes not coinciding with each other and being parallel to each other, for any p E {x E N: 1 ≤x≤E-1}, ≤ a p-th pair of electrodes among the E pairs of electrodes has one electrode connected to an s(p)-th conducting line among the L conducting lines and the other electrode connected to an L-th conducting line among the L conducting lines, where a (K+1)-th set W(K+1) is an empty set, an E-th pair of electrodes among the E pairs of electrodes has one electrode connected to an (L-1)-th conducting line among the L conducting lines and the other electrode connected to the L-th conducting line among the L conducting lines, for any k E {x E N: 1 ≤ X K}, the conducting line selector selects: (1) in a case where k # K and n(k) # 2, for any y E {x E N 1 ≤ X ≤ n(k)-2}, two conducting lines determined by elements belonging to a set Y(y), among the L conducting lines, and for y = n(k)-1, conducting lines determined by elements belonging to a set Y, among the L conducting lines, where, conducting lines determined by the elements belonging to a set Y, among the L conducting lines conducting lines determined by the elements belonging to a set Y, among the L conducting lines, where and (3) in a case where k=K, = for any y E {x E N 1 <x≤n(k)-1}, ≤ ≤ two conducting lines determined by the elements belonging to a set Y(y), among the L conducting lines. (Claim 22)
Regarding claims 22-23 application ‘382 teaches any je {x e N: 1 x K}, the n(j) is a prime factor of the E. (Claims 23-24)
Regarding claims 24 -27 application ‘382 teaches the first substance is a liquid, and the second substance is a gas. (Claims 27-28)
Regarding claim 28-31 application ‘382 teaches a normal direction of the E planes corresponds to a vertical direction. (Claims 29-30)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250290784 A1 SENSOR FOR LOCATING INTERFACE POSITION, AND LIQUID LEVEL GAUGE
US 11169015 B2 Liquid level sensor and method for sensing liquid level
KR 102158597 B1 An Apparatus for measuring water level using resistance measuring method of interval of electrodes and method thereof
JP 2008224450 A LIQUID LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE
JP 2007240262 A LIQUID LEVEL SENSOR
US 20190186978 A1 DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING THE LEVEL OF A MEDUIM
US 9903748 B1 Liquid level sensor and method for sensing liquid level
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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 M 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights