DETAILED ACTION
for
MEASURING THE VOLUME OF LIQUID IN A CONTAINER
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 10/11/2024 & 03/21/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath/Declaration submitted on 10/11/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong (KR 20220037883).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 15, Hong discloses an apparatus ad method for measuring a volume of liquid in a container, wherein: the container (100) comprises multiple chambers (200) each arranged to accommodate a volume of liquid “The liquid fuel stored in the storage tank 200 may be a liquefied gas; Page 2”; and the apparatus comprises a processor (400)and multiple sensors (300) such that at least one sensor is arranged to detect noise from each chamber “sensing device 300 may be attached to the outer surface of the storage tank 200 to detect sound waves; Page 2”; and the processor (400) being configured to process signals from the multiple sensors (300) to provide an indication of the volume of liquid in the container “the terminal device 400 refers to the sound waves detected by the plurality of sensing devices 300 to the storage tank 200 . It is possible to determine the point and the size of the sloshing generated inside the tank; bottom of Page 4”.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Hong discloses the container (100) being a fuel tank for containing liquified gas (“The storage tank 200 is provided in the hull 100 and may store liquid fuel”; Page 2).
Regarding claim 3, Hong discloses each chamber (200) being in a form of a tube (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hong discloses each of the multiple sensors (300) being in a form of a respective microphone (FIG. 6; “the sensing unit 310 may be a hydrophone, but the sensing unit 310 of the present invention is not limited to the hydrophone”).
Regarding claim 7, Hong discloses each sensor (300) is positioned at an end of the chamber (200) with which it is associated (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Hong discloses processing the electronic signals to provide an indication of the volume of liquid in the container (100) includes using signals that are generated by sensing sounds that arise inherently from the container (100; “The communication unit 320 may transmit the detection result by the detection unit 310 to the terminal device 400”).
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses the sounds that arise inherently from the container (100) and its contents include one or more of (Fig. 1): noise caused by phase change at a boundary layer between a liquid phase and a gas phase (“the liquid fuel stored in the storage tank 200 may be a liquefied gas”; Page 2), noise caused by movement of the liquid within the container (100), and noise caused by vibrations of walls of the chamber (200) and the container (100).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Hong discloses the liquid in the container (100) being liquid hydrogen (“the sensing unit 310 may be a hydrophone, but the sensing unit 310 of the present invention is not limited to the hydrophone”; Page 2); and the container (100) being a fuel tank (200) of a vehicle (ship 10).
Regarding claim 17, Hong discloses calculating a quantity of liquid in the container (100) and calculating an error margin using multiple estimates of a volume of separate parts of the container (100) each having its own error margin (“the sensing device 300 may be the size of a specific frequency or the volume of the sound wave included in the specific frequency range”; Page 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hong discloses calculating a quantity of liquid in the container (100) using a computer model that relates an acoustic signature from the container (100; “the sound waves sensed by the plurality of sensing devices 300 are transmitted to the terminal device 400”).
Regarding claims 21-22, Hong discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a function of the processor of claim 1 (“a wired or wireless communication channel may be formed between the communication unit 320 and the terminal device 400”; Page 4).
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 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (KR 20220037883).
Regarding claim 4, Hong discloses there are multiple chambers.
Hong fails to explicitly discloses the ten or more chambers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include multiple tanks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Regarding claim 5, Hong discloses each chamber (200) being associated with a sensor (Fig. 4).
Hong fails to explicitly discloses at least two sensors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include multiple sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 16 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.
Conclusion
Other prior art references listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) are considered to be of interest disclosing similar systems.
Olson discloses a tank having a wall, an accelerometer attached to the wall and configured to measure a vibration in the wall, and an instrument electronically connected to the accelerometer, the instrument configured to communicate a liquid level condition responsive to a vibration measurement received from the accelerometer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights