DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s submission filed on February 27, 2026. As set forth therein, claim 1 is amended and claims 1, 4-7, and 15-17 remain pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,557,861 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner notes that the following response to arguments were set forth in the Advisory Action mailed on February 13, 2026.
Specification
The Examiner finds that the Applicant has overcome the previous issue with respect to providing the ‘second page’ (Page 2) of the patent. Therefore, this issue is resolved.
Claim Rejections
The Applicant states that claim 1 is amended to require that the signal link be flushed with the first and second surfaces of the block. The Applicant stats that in Georgescu, the lower end of the probe extends into the tank and is well beyond the top surface of the tank.
The Examiner notes that in Georgescu, and as acknowledged by the Applicant, the upper end of the probe is at the upper end of the output conductor. The Examiner acknowledges that the lower end of the probe extends into the tank and thus is beyond the top surface of the tank. Therefore, one end of the signal link (bottom portion) is not flushed with at least the second surface of the block. Nonetheless, as set forth below, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a signal link be flushed with the second surface.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgescu et al. US Patent Pub. 2015/0276460 in view of Lewis, II et al. US Patent Pub. 2001/0001439.
Regarding claim 1:
A controlled impedance feedthrough assembly between a first environment and a second environment, the feedthrough assembly comprising:
Georgescu is directed to a coaxial feed-through device for coupling a received process connection to a storage tank including an inner electrical conductor, an outer electrical conductor; and a dielectric sleeve disposed between the probe and the outer electrical conductor. See the abstract. In addition, as shown in figure 1A and 1B, the feedthrough assembly is between a first environment (outside the tank) and a second environment (inside the tank). See also paragraph [0024]
(a) an electrically conductive block having a first surface and a second surface;
Georgescu discloses an electrically conductive block (feed-through assembly) having a first surface (top of the feedthrough assembly) and a second surface (bottom of the feedthrough assembly). See paragraph [0022] which discloses that the feed-through 100 includes an inner electrical conductor (probe) 10 and an outer electrical conductor 20. See also paragraphs [0026] and [0035]
(b) at least one feedthrough in the block extending between the first surface and the second surface,
Georgescu discloses a feed-through extending between the first surface (top) and the second surface (bottom). See paragraph [0022] and Figures 1A, 1B and 2.
the feedthrough comprising:
(1) a spacer through aperture extending between the first surface and the second surface;
Georgescu discloses a spacer through aperture (see figure 1A,1B and 2). The opening is between the outer electrical conductor and the probe 10 which extends from the top surface to the bottom surface of the feedthrough assembly. See paragraphs [0022]. Georgescu also explains that a dielectric takes up this space of the spacer area. See paragraph [0023].
(2) a dielectric spacer within the spacer through aperture having a first face and a second face;
Georgescu discloses a dielectric spacer within the spacer through aperture. See Figure 1A and paragraph [0023] which shows the dielectric sleeve (spacer) disposed between the probe 10 and outer electrical conductor 20 and extends from the top surface to the bottom surface. See also paragraph [0032]. The dielectric sleeve has a first face (top of dielectric sleeve) and a second face (bottom of dielectric sleeve). See Figure 1A, 1B and 2.
(3) a signal through aperture extending between the first face and the second face; and
Georgescu discloses an opening for a signal which extends between the top and bottom of the dielectric sleeve. See Figures 1A, 1B and 2. As explained in paragraph [0022], the signal through aperture allows a probe 10 to pass through the assembly through the opening.
(4) [a rigid,] an electrically-conductive signal link in the signal through aperture having a first end [at] flushed with the first surface and a second end [at] flushed with the second surface;
Georgescu discloses an electrical-conductor signal link (probe 10) in the signal through aperture (see figure 1A) having a first end (top or entry into the feed-through assembly) and a second end (bottom or exit out of the feed-through assembly). See paragraph [0022]
With reference to Figure 1A, the signal link has a first end that is flushed with the first surface (top or entry into the feed-through assembly). However, with respect to the second end (bottom or exit out of the feed-through assembly) the probe 10 is illustrated to go into the storage tank 40 at some distance. The Examiner notes that Georgescu does not specifically disclose in its description as to whether the electrically-conductive signal link can be flushed with the second surface or whether it is required to go a certain distance into the storage tank.
Nonetheless, the Examiner notes that it was well known in the art to have a probe be designed to be flushed at the second surface as well as allow for the probe to go beyond the second surface (such as illustrated by Georgescu).
For example, Lewis is directed to a petroleum process in which a probe is inserted within pipelines and vessels. See paragraphs [0001 and 0023]. With reference to paragraph [0045], Lewis discloses a feed through assembly with a probe assembly 10 which can be fitted with components of different lengths. See Figure 2. Lewis further discloses that these different lengths would allow for the probe to be flush-mounted with the walls of a vessel or extend to any desired length into the process stream. As explained by Lewis, the extension can be any desired length and its length is determined by the desired position of the distal end of the probe assembly with respect to the interior surface of the vessel. See also paragraph [0046] where both flush or surface mounted installations are disclosed. In this case, the probe may be mounted on the surface, on an interior surface or any desired length.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a signal link (or probe) with a second end that is flushed at a second surface of the feedthrough. The Examiner finds that both Lewis and Georgescu are directed to the same field of endeavor of petroleum based storage tanks/vessels as well as using a probe for measurements. See paragraph [0002] of Georgescu which discloses of tanks with petroleum products and Lewis which discloses of vessels with petroleum process streams (see paragraph [0001] of Lewis). In addition, Lewis discloses that it was known for the probe to vary in length. As set forth above, the probe may be on the surface of a vessel/pipe, on an interior surface of the pipe/vessel or at any desired length. Thus, both flushed and non-flushed embodiments are disclosed. Therefore, it would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have varying length including a probe which is flushed. The Examiner finds that the reasoning set forth in Lewis is that the length is based on what is desired and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have designed a signal end to be flushed with the surface based on the design needs of the system since this would allow the length to be determined by the desired position of the distal end of the probe. See also paragraph [0046].
(c) the feedthrough being hermetically sealed [by one of either the first face being recessed from the first surface forming a first gap that is filled with a potting material or the second face being recessed from the second surface forming a second gap that is filled with the potting material] between the first environment and second environment.
As explained in paragraph [0024], Georgescu desires to prevent ambient from the interior of the tank to leak out. Georgescu discloses of using O-rings to seal the assembly. In paragraph [0006], Georgescu discloses that the feedthrough is ‘leak-proof’. In paragraph [0023], Georgescu discloses that an O-ring comprising a fluoroelastomer is used. Thus, the feedthrough of Georgescu is hermetically sealed.
Regarding claim 4:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 1 wherein the signal link and signal through aperture are shaped to prevent the signal link from being pushed through the signal through aperture and wherein the spacer and spacer aperture are shaped to prevent the spacer from being pushed through the spacer aperture.
As shown in Figure 1A and paragraph [0035-0040] the metal extension 10a of the probe is stopped. This area defines air chamber surrounding the metal extension 10a of the probe. As depicted in Figure 1A and, 1B, the signal link and signal through aperture are shaped to prevent the signal link from being pushed through via this metal extension. The Examiner finds that the metal extension rests on the dielectric ring 104 since it is wider than what is needed to pass through. In addition, as disclosed by Georgescu, the signal link rests on the shoulder 20a area of the signal through aperture. See paragraphs [0022] and [0036]
Regarding claim 5:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 4 wherein the first end of the signal link has a head with a larger diameter than a diameter of the signal through aperture.
As depicted in Figure 1A and, 1B, the signal link and signal through aperture are shaped to prevent the signal link from being pushed through. As disclosed by Georgescu, this shape stops the probe. The Examiner finds that the metal extension at the top part of the probe is stopped by the dielectric ring 104 since it is wider than what is needed to pass through as well as the shoulder 20a. See paragraph [0035-0040]. As disclosed by Georgescu, the signal link rests on the shoulder 20a area of the signal through aperture. See paragraphs [0022] and [0036]
Regarding claim 6:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 4 wherein the spacer aperture has a stepped diameter creating a shoulder such that a diameter of the first opening is larger than the diameter of the second opening, and wherein the spacer abuts the shoulder.
As depicted in Figure 1A and, 1B, the signal link and signal through aperture are shaped to prevent the signal link from being pushed through. As disclosed by Georgescu, this shape stops the probe. The Examiner finds that the metal extension are stopped by the dielectric ring 104 since it is wider (diameter of a first opening is largen that the diameter of a second opening) than what is needed to pass through. See paragraph [0035-0040]. As disclosed by Georgescu, the signal link rests on the shoulder 20a of the signal through aperture (and thus has a ‘stepped diameter’). See paragraphs [0022] and [0036]
Regarding claim 7:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 1 further comprising a flange separating the first environment and the second environment, the block being mounted within an opening in the flange, the seam between the block and flange being hermetically sealed.
Georgescu discloses the assembly comprises a flange (see paragraph [022] and Figure 1A, which separates the first environment (outside the tank) and the second environment (inside the tank). As shown in Figure 1A, the block is mounted with an opening in the flange. The Examiner notes that the seam between the block and flange are hermetically sealed since as set forth in paragraph [0022], the feedthrough block is welded to the flange. See also paragraph [0030]
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgescu et al. US Patent Pub. 2015/0276460 in view of in view of Lewis, II et al. US Patent Pub. 2001/0001439 and further in view of Benz US Patent Pub. 2017/0115154.
Regarding claim 15:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 1 wherein the feedthrough is hermetically sealed in part by a press fit.
As set forth above, Georgescu disclose that the feedthrough is hermetically sealed by an O-ring. Georgescu does not specifically disclose that the feedthrough is hermetically sealed in part by a press fit.
Nonetheless, Benz discloses of an opening which is sealed off so that the cavity can be separated off from an environment when the measuring cable is inserted into the cavity. See paragraph [0012]. As explained in paragraph [0021], the probe/measuring cable may be press fit which causes the cross section of the receiving opening to be smaller than the cross section of the measuring cable. See also paragraphs [0014] and [0052]. See also paragraph [0046] which discloses that the entire cavity may be formed as a press fit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to seal the feedthrough by a press fit. As explained by Benz one of the goals is to seal off the cavity from the environment. One method to do so is to press fit a measuring cable that is inserted into the cavity. The Examiner finds that Georgescu desires to provide a seal from the environment. Thus, providing a press fit type of arrangement would have provided further security in holding the probe in place as well as providing a seal.
Regarding claim 16:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 1 wherein the feedthrough is hermetically sealed by a press fit between the spacer and the spacer aperture and a press fit between the signal link and the signal through aperture.
As set forth above, Georgescu disclosed that the feedthrough is hermetically sealed by an O-ring as well as by a potting material which is also used for securing the cable. Georgescu does not specifically disclose that the feedthrough is hermetically sealed in part by a press fit.
Nonetheless, Benz discloses of an opening which is sealed off so that the cavity can be separated off from an environment when the measuring cable is inserted into the cavity. See paragraph [0012]. As explained in paragraph [0021], the probe/measuring cable may be press fit which causes the cross section of the receiving opening to be smaller than the cross section of the measuring cable. See also paragraph [0052]. See also paragraph [0046] which discloses that the entire cavity may be formed as a press fit. Thus, in this case, the area between a spacer and spacer aperture as well as the signal link and signal through aperture of Georgescu can be press fit since Benz discloses of press fitting the entire cavity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to seal the feedthrough by a press fit between the spacer and the spacer aperture and a press fit between the signal link and the signal through aperture. As explained by Benz one of the goals is to seal off the cavity from the environment. One method to do so is to press fit a measuring cable that is inserted into the cavity. The Examiner finds that Georgescu desires to provide a seal from the environment (see paragraphs [0012], [0021] and [0081]. Thus, providing a press fit type of arrangement would have provided further security in holding the probe in place as well as providing a seal. Thus, press fitting the feedthrough between the spacer and spacer aperture and signal link and signal through aperture would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it allows for both sealing from the environment as well as securely holding the cable.
Regarding claim 17:
The controlled impedance feedthrough assembly of claim 1 wherein the feedthrough is hermetically sealed by molding the spacer around the signal link and a press fit between the spacer and the spacer aperture.
As set forth above, Georgescu discloses that the feedthrough is hermetically sealed by an O-ring. Georgescu does not specifically disclose that the feedthrough is hermetically sealed in part by a press fit.
Nonetheless, Benz discloses of an opening which is sealed off so that the cavity can be separated off from an environment when the measuring cable is inserted into the cavity. See paragraph [0012]. As explained in paragraph [0021], the probe/measuring cable may be press fit which causes the cross section of the receiving opening to be smaller than the cross section of the measuring cable. See also paragraph [0052]. Benz explains that the press fit is produced is smaller than the cross section of the measuring cable. The press fit may be produced by temporary heating prior to inserting the measuring cable into the receiving opening of the probe end device, and may ensure that the measuring cable end is held in the interior of the probe end device by the receiving opening and/or by the cavity wall by way of frictional forces. Thus, the Examiner finds that Benz molds the spacer around the measuring cable during the press fit procedure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to seal the feedthrough by a press fit by molding the spacer around the signal link and a press fit between the spacer and the spacer aperture. As explained by Benz one of the goals is to seal off the cavity from the environment. One method to do so is to press fit a measuring cable that is inserted into the cavity. The Examiner finds that Georgescu desires to provide a seal from the environment (see paragraphs [0012], [0021] and [0081]. Thus, providing a press fit type of arrangement would have provided further security in holding the probe in place as well as providing a seal. Thus, molding the spacer around the signal link and press fitting between the spacer and the spacer aperture would have yielded a predictable result to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it allows for both sealing from the environment as well as securely holding the cable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ovidio Escalante whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday - 6:00 AM to 2:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Fuelling can be reached on (571) 270-1367. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9000. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner
Central Reexamination Unit - Art Unit 3992
(571) 272-7537
Conferees:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992