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 INTERPRETATION
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 8-13 require only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
The step recited in claim 12 lines 3-4 “determining that the tank is pressurized when the pressure is above a first determined pressure threshold value” is not required to be performed unless the pressure is above the first determined pressure threshold value.
The step recited in claim 13 lines 3-5 “determining that the tank comprises saturated steam when the pressure is above a second predetermined pressure threshold value and a temperature is above a predetermined temperature threshold value” is not required to be performed unless the pressure is above the second predetermined pressure threshold value and a temperature is above a predetermined temperature value.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 13 therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 9, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 line 5, “refence” should be amended to read “reference”.
In claim 7 line 5, “a temperature” should be amended to read “the temperature” as the temperature has been previously recited in lines 2-3.
In claim 9 line 4, “refence” should be amended to read “reference”.
In claim 13 lines 4-5, “a temperature” should be amended to read “the temperature” as the temperature has been previously recited in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14 recites “A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the control circuitry, the method of claim 8”. However a computer program product comprising program code has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03.
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 15 is 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.
In claim 15 lines 2-3, “the processing circuitry” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, the closest prior art (Hofman US 20190293510 A1, cited on IDS), teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Hofman are lined through] a guided wave radar level gauge (Fig. 2) for determining a fill level of a product (WATER 208, Fig. 2) contained in a tank (STEAM BOILER TANK 205, Fig. 2) for high-pressure applications (para. [0026] “high pressure”) comprising:
a transceiver (220, Fig. 2) configured to provide a transmit signal (“RADAR PULSE”, Fig. 2), and to receive a reflected signal resulting from a reflection of the transmit signal at a surface of the product (“RADAR PULSE REFLECTED FROM WATER SURFACE”, Fig. 2);
a probe connected to the transceiver and configured to propagate the transmit signal towards the surface and to return the reflected signal to the transceiver (PROBE 244, Fig. 2, where signal propagation towards surface and back is indicated by up and down arrows at “RADAR PULSE REFLECTED FROM RR” and “RADAR PULSE REFLECTED FROM WATER SURFACE”);
a reference reflector arranged at a reference position on the probe (REFERENCE REFLECTOR (RR) 224, Fig. 2);
control circuitry (PROCESSOR 215 and 215a-c, Fig. 2) configured to determine the fill level based on the received reflected signal (para. [0023] “digital logic 215c... can be configured to implement ... a level finding algorithm), wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
perform a distance measurement to determine a measured distance to the reference reflector (para. [0024] “The RR 224 should generally always be sufficiently above the surface of the water 208 so that it is always above the water level so that an accurate measurement of its apparent position can be made”, where the measurement of the reference reflector RR apparent position meets the claimed distance measurement to the reference reflector);
acquire a temperature or pressure of the vapor in the tank (para. [0001] “Disclosed embodiments relate to steam physical property measurements, such as a pressure or temperature measurement”);
Westerling (US 20200096378 A1) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Westerling are lined through]a guided wave radar level gauge for determining a fill level of a product contained in a tank (abstract “radar level gauge system” and “determine a level of the interface between liquid phase product and vapor phase product”; Fig. 1) comprising:
a transceiver (21, 23, Fig. 2) configured to provide a transmit signal (ST1, ST2, Fig. 2), and to receive a reflected signal resulting from a reflection of the transmit signal at a surface of the product (SR1, SR2, Fig. 2);
a probe connected to the transceiver and configured to propagate the transmit signal towards the surface and to return the reflected signal to the transceiver (17, Figs. 2, 6, 7A, where transmit and return signals are shown at ST1, ST2, SR1, and SR2 in Fig. 2);
a reference reflector arranged at a reference position on the probe (53a-d, Fig. 6; 57a-d, Fig. 7A);
control circuitry (25, 26, Fig. 2; para. [0010] “processing circuitry”) configured to determine the fill level based on the received reflected signal (para. [0010] “the processing circuitry being configured to determine the level of the interface between liquid phase product and vapor phase product based on a relation between the first transmit signal and the first reflection signal”), wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
perform a distance measurement to determine a measured distance to the reference reflector (para. [0032] “the (electrical) distance between two reflectors may be measured”; para. [0099] “the first echo curve 83 includes a first peak 87 indicative of the electrical distance to a first reflector 53a, a second peak 89 indicative of the electrical distance to a second reflector 53b”);
acquire a temperature or pressure of the vapor in the tank (para. [0033] “measure the temperature in the tank”);
Harper (US 20140223992 A1) teaches determining a dielectric constant of vapor based on the vapor pressure (para. [0019] “The second dielectric is the vapor and the third dielectric is the liquid. The second dielectric constant and the third dielectric constant can be determined as a function of the vapor pressure”).
However, the prior art does not teach or make obvious, in combination:
determine a first dielectric constant of a vapor in the tank based on the measured distance to the reference reflector and a reference distance to the reference reflector;
determine a second dielectric constant of the vapor in the tank based on the acquired temperature or pressure; and
compare a difference between the first and second dielectric constant of the vapor in the tank with a predetermined difference threshold value.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, RESHA 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights