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 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.
Claims 21, 22, 25, and 30 are 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.
Regarding Claim 21, it is unclear what layer thickness range limits the claim scope as three are mentioned.
Regarding Claim 22, it is unclear what aspect to the mentioned standard is being referred to. Is it that the thickness is to be from 1.0 mm to 2.2 mm? Is it this and something else? Is there some other meaning?
Regarding Claim 25, it is unclear what is meant by “at least in sections”. Does this mean the requirement is to be satisfied in at least two sections? Should the claim refer to “at least in one section”?
Regarding Claim 30, it is unclear how the adhesion promoter is to comprise both a Ni alloy and a CoCr alloy. Is this a contradiction? Are at least two different regions to be characterized with one being Ni alloy and the other CoCr alloy? Is there some other meaning?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 18, 19, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endress+Hauser in “Level Measurement” downloaded from www.dk.endress.com on 10 Sept. 2021 (28 March 2014)(44 pages) (NPL No. 1 on IDS filed on 16 Jan. 2025) (hereinafter, Endress). Endress teaches field device for determining measured variable of liquid levels in a medium (Liquiphant Failsafe) having a SUS 318L sheet (Figures on page 26 and 27 show sheet), an adhesion promotor of alloy 22, and an enamel coating (page 27, rightmost column in bottom table). Alloy 22 is Hastelloy C-22, which is Ni(56)Cr(22)Mo(13), meeting requirements of Claims 16, 18, and 19. Regarding Claim 27, the device is characterized as tuning fork (vibratable unit) (page 26). Regarding Claim 28, the wetted part in this device is the measuring head (below the flange in photo of FTL80 on page 27).
Claim(s) 16, 23, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osumi JP 08-315963. Osumi teaches stainless steel plate coated with NiCo alloy followed by enamel layer (page 3; Example 1). Regarding Claim 23, Osumi teaches powders are applied (top of page 6) by suspension in water and binder (middle page 6) to the stainless steel, which is a coating process. Osumi teaches plating in order of Claim 30.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endress+Hauser in “Level Measurement” downloaded from www.dk.endress.com on 10 Sept. 2021 (28 March 2014)(44 pages) (NPL No. 1 on IDS filed on 16 Jan. 2025) (hereinafter, Endress). Endress is relied upon as set forth above in the section 102 rejection over Endress. Endress does not specify the order of application of layers, but, as one of two possible ways, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to first apply the middle adhesion promoter Alloy 22 layer on the stainless steel and to second apply the enamel layer on the adhesion promoter Alloy 22 layer with the expectation that the resulting characterized laminate in Endress would result.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 21, 22, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro CN 1443873. Yoshihiro teaches stainless steel material (Claim 1), which can be 19 mm body thickness (page 8) [a sheet] which can be further coated with NiCr alloy layer, and enamel layer (Claim 1). While this configuration may not be exemplified, Yoshihiro teaches that it is effective. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare article with this configuration since Yoshihiro suggests it may be effective. Regarding Claim 17, Yoshihiro suggests claimed thicknesses (page 8, Embodiment 3: 40 to 70 microns; Claim 4), rendering this obvious. Regarding Claim 21, Yoshihiro suggests claimed thickness (Claim 3: 600 to 2500 microns), rendering this obvious. Regarding Claim 22, to the extent that this claim requires thickness from 1.0 mm to 2.2 mm, Yoshihiro suggests for same reasons as applicable to Claim 21. Regarding Claim 30, Yoshihiro teaches the sequence of steps (page 8).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osumi JP 08-315963. Osumi teaches stainless steel plate coated with NiCo alloy followed by enamel layer (page 3; Example 1). Osumi does not exemplify claimed Co amount in Claim 20. However, Osumi teaches Co alloy composition overlapping that claimed (Example 1), rendering it obvious. See MPEP 2145.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 29 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.
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claims 24, 25, and 29, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest claimed Ra in claimed context of Claim 24 or the devices of Claims 25 and 19. For example, Yoshihiro CN 1443873 teaches or suggests many claimed features for the reasons set forth above in the section 103 rejection over Yoshihiro, but fails to expressly teach or suggest claimed Ra value or provide basis for establishing its inherency. Likewise, Endress+Hauser in “Level Measurement” downloaded from www.dk.endress.com on 10 Sept. 2021 (28 March 2014)(44 pages) (NPL No. 1 on IDS filed on 16 Jan. 2025) (hereinafter, Endress) teaches or suggests many claimed features for the reasons set forth above in the section 102 rejection over Endress, but fails to expressly teach or suggest claimed device features of Claims 25 and 29.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 13 June 2026
Prosecution Insights