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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
In paragraph [0008] , no reference is identified for the prior art of a process for adjusting the sensor positions relative to the dosing openings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “tensioning” in its broadest reasonable interpretation is used by the claim to mean “pressed together (paragraph [0012]),” while the accepted meaning is “the act of action of stretching or the condition or degree of being stretched to stiffness (Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tension#h1, site accessed 06/29/2026).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
It is suggested that the term “clamp” or “clamping device”, where “clamp” has the meaning “a device designed to bind or constrict or to press two or more parts together so as to hold them firmly” (Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clamping, site accessed 06/29/2026), be used to describe the “tensioning device”. For purposes of this examination, the term “tensioning device” will be interpreted as meaning a “clamping device”.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 2 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joksch (US 2014/0116117 A1) in view of Beetz (DE 202020002719 U1).
Regarding claim 1, Joksch discloses a method and device for the capacitive measurement of the impedance of a multiphase mixture comprising the following elements:
a sensor unit including
a first electrode (Joksch, Fig. 1, E1),
a second electrode (Joksch, Fig. 1, E2), and
an insert positioned between said first electrode and said second electrode (Joksch, Fig. 1, MG), wherein
a measurement channel (Joksch, Fig. 1, DF “flow-through equipment”) extending in a vertical direction is formed in said insert;
As stated above, Joksch discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 1 of the current invention. However, Joksch does not expressly disclose the following elements:
a tensioning device (clamping device) configured to act on a relevant one of said first electrode and said second electrode being arranged in a horizontal direction on a side, facing away from said insert, of at least one of said first electrode and said second electrode;
at least said first electrode, said second electrode and said insert being configured, in a loosened state of said tensioning device, to be displaceable in the horizontal direction;
wherein the sensor assembly includes a plurality of said sensor units and a plurality of said tensioning devices; and,
wherein said plurality of said sensor units are arranged in a row extending in the horizontal direction, wherein one of said plurality of tensioning devices is arranged between each of said plurality of sensor units.
Beetz teaches a double-wedge clamping device analogous to the tensioning device (clamping device) of claim 1 which comprises:
a tensioning device (clamping device) configured to act on a relevant one of said first electrode and said second electrode being arranged in a horizontal direction on a side, facing away from said insert, of at least one of said first electrode and said second electrode (Beetz, annotated Fig. 5, below);
at least said first electrode, said second electrode and said insert being configured, in a loosened state of said tensioning device, to be displaceable in the horizontal direction (Beetz, Fig. 2, “slot”);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary kill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive sensor as taught by Joksch with the clamping device of Beetz for the purpose of pressing the electrode to the insert and to allow the horizontal movement and precise positioning of the electrodes and insert.
The modified device of Joksch through Beetz teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including all of the elements of claim 1 of the current invention. However, Joksch does not expressly disclose the following elements:
sensor assembly having a plurality of sensor units and a plurality of tensioning devices;
plurality of sensor units arranged in a row extending in the horizontal direction, wherein one of said plurality of tensioning devices is arranged between each of said plurality of sensor units.
However, MPEP §2144.04 recites that the duplication of parts and rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In this instance, Applicant’s disclosure does not appear to highlight or explain a new and unexpected result from the duplication of the sensor units and tensioning devices. While considered, the duplication and rearrangement of the sensor units and tensioning devices is not afforded patentable weight in a determination of allowability.
PNG
media_image1.png
249
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beetz, Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
226
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Beetz, Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
215
357
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Beetz, Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Joksch through Beetz as applied to claim 1 teaches each of said plurality of tensioning devices acting on a corresponding one of said first and second electrodes in the horizontal direction is arranged on a respective side, facing away from said insert, of said first electrode and said second electrode (Beetz, annotated Fig. 5 “slot”, above); therefore, the modified device of Joksch through Beetz as applied to claim 1 teaches the invention claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Joksch through Beetz as applied to claim 1 teaches a multiplicity of said plurality of tensioning devices are displaceable in the horizontal direction in the loosened state (Beetz, annotated Fig. 5,above); therefore, the modified device of Joksch through Beetz as applied to claim 1 teaches the invention claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Joksch through Beetz as applied to claim 1 teaches all of said plurality of tensioning devices are displaceable in the horizontal direction in the loosened state (Beetz, annotated Fig. 5 “slot”, above); therefore, the modified device of Joksch through Beetz as applied to claim 1 teaches the invention claim 34.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 5-7 none of the most pertinent prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests, for a row of capacitance sensors, of incorporating wedge clamps capable of simultaneously allowing the lateral adjustment of the position of the sensor units on either side of each wedge clamp.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Powell (US 9022063 B2) discloses a Powder Feed Rate Sensor which incorporates parallel plate capacitors mounted on the inside surface of a measurement channel.
Cai (CN 210677848 U) discloses a Wedge Clamp incorporating two rows of single-sided wedges clamps for clamping electrodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL whose telephone number is (571)305-
5217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00a-4:30p Fri 7:00a-11:00p.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571- 272-4459. 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.
/ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights