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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (CN 110993271 A) (hereinafter Cui) in view of Chan et al. (US 10,935,413 B2) (hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Cui teaches an oil immersed transformer [oil immersed transformer 1] comprising an oil level detection device [liquid supplement tank with optical sensor sensing the oil level] (see Abstract, Fig. 1), the oil-immersed transformer [1] including an oil storage device for storage of an insulating oil [2] (see Abstract, Fig. 1), and the oil level detection device comprising:
a separate oil tank [liquid supplement tank 3], wherein the separate oil tank includes a lower tank body and an upper tank body [upper and lower portions of tank 3] (Pg. 3, see Fig. 1), the lower tank body is disposed on the oil storage device, and the upper tank body is disposed above and in spatial communication with the lower tank body (see Fig. 1); wherein the oil storage device has a first oil chamber, and the lower tank body has a second oil chamber that is in spatial communication with the first oil chamber, such that the insulating oil circulates between the first oil chamber and the second oil chamber [liquid supplement tank 3 comprises an upper part and a lower part; oil immersed transformer 1 and liquid supplement tank 3 connected through holes 4 and 5] (Pg. 3, see Fig. 1, Claim 1); and
an optical oil level gauge disposed on the separate oil tank for detecting a height change of an oil surface [liquid supplement tank equipped with an optical sensor for sensing the oil level] (Pgs. 3-4, see Fig. 1).
Cui fails to teach wherein the separate oil tank is detachable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Cui such that the separate oil tank is detachable, in order to provide modularity and allow for separate maintenance of the tanks. It has been held that making a connected portion separable is within the preview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Cui fails to teach wherein the optical oil gauge is disposed on the upper tank body and has a light output surface that is positioned in an inner space of the upper tank body so as to project a sensing beam onto the insulating oil within the second oil chamber for detecting a height change of the oil surface. Chan teaches an oil level sensor positioned at the top of a tank body having a light output surface that is positioned in an inner space of the top of the tank body so as to project a sensing beam onto the oil within the tank for detecting a height change of the oil surface (see Abstract, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Cui with Chan such that the optical detector is disposed on the upper tank body and has a light output surface that is positioned in an inner space of the upper tank body so as to project a sensing beam onto the insulating oil within the second oil chamber for detecting a height change of the oil surface, in order to provide a non-contact level sensing method.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Chan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vowles (US 5,401,062) (hereinafter Vowles).
Regarding claims 2-3, Cui in view of Chan as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the oil storage device has a first lateral opening that communicates with the first oil chamber and the second lower tank body has a second lateral opening that communicates with the second oil chamber (see Cui Fig. 1). Cui in view of Chan fails to teach a first mating portion that surrounds the first lateral opening, and a second mating portion that surrounds the second lateral opening, the first mating portion mated with the second mating portion to form a sealing engagement, the first and second mating portions each configured to be a flange structure. Vowles teaches where two pipe conduits can be connected using first and second flange structures as mating portions to form a sealing engagement (see Abstract, Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Cui in view of Chan with Vowles such to further comprise a first mating portion that surrounds the first lateral opening, and a second mating portion that surrounds the second lateral opening, the first mating portion mated with the second mating portion to form a sealing engagement, the first and second mating portions each configured to be a flange structure, in order to connect the two tanks in a fluid-tight configuration.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Cui in view of Chan and Vowles as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the lower tank body has a top opening and the upper tank body has a bottom opening [liquid supplement tank 3 comprises an upper part and a lower part] (Cui Pg. 3, see Fig. 1, Claim 1). Cui in view of Chan and Vowles fails to teach a third mating portion that surrounds the top opening, and a fourth mating portion that surrounds the bottom opening, and the third mating portion is mated with the fourth mating portion to form the sealing engagement, wherein the third and fourth mating portions are each configured to be a flange structure. Vowles teaches where two openings can be connected using first and second flange structures as mating portions to form a sealing engagement (see Abstract, Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Cui in view of Chan and Vowles such to further comprise a third mating portion that surrounds the top opening, and a fourth mating portion that surrounds the bottom opening, and the third mating portion is mated with the fourth mating portion to form the sealing engagement, wherein the third and fourth mating portions are each configured to be a flange structure, in order to provide a fluid-tight connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7-9 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:
Regarding claim 5, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations regarding wherein the lower tank body includes a main body portion and an extension portion, and an extending direction of the main body portion is perpendicular to an extending direction of the extension portion, wherein the main body portion is configured to have the second oil chamber ,the second lateral opening, and the second mating portion, and the extension portion is configured to have the top opening and the third mating portion, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claims 1-2 and 4, from which it depends upon.
Regarding claims 7-9, they are dependent on claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
