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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on July 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The examiner treats the election as being without traverse, even though not explicitly stated by applicant, as there are no arguments to traverse the restriction requirement.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 28, 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits unless otherwise cited on form PTO-892.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 7, in lines 2-3 of the claim, the phrase “is performed via a controller compares the size and the number . . .” to “is performed via a controller that compares the size and the number . . .”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 1, the claim recites “estimating the remaining amount of the liquid based on the size and the number of the bubbles observed” in lines 8-9 of the claim (emphasis added). However, in the prior step found in lines 5-7 of the claim, the claim recites “observing a size or a number of bubbles contained in the liquid” (emphasis added). In a broadest reasonable interpretation, this means that only a size or a number of bubbles contained in the liquid is observed. In contrast, the estimation of the remaining amount of liquid requires both the size and the number of bubbles to be observed. How can the estimation require both the size and the number of bubbles to be observed when the observation step of the claim only requires observing the size or the number of bubbles, not both? Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the observation by the vision system to include observing the size and number of bubbles.
As for claim 2, the claim recites that gas is injected into the liquid storage container “within a predetermined range” after liquid is discharged. However, it is unclear what is meant by “within a predetermined range”. Is the range an amount of gas that is injected into the container? The length of time the gas is injected? How close to the liquid is the gas injected? Something else? Without answers to these questions, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, and the claim is considered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the predetermined range to be injecting any amount of gas into the liquid storage container.
As for claim 5, the issue raised above regarding claim 1 applies here as well. If the estimation of the remaining amount of liquid requires the size and the number of bubbles observed, why does the observation step only require observation of the size or the number of bubbles?
Claims 3-4 and 6-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirama et al (EP 4033254), as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Hirama (Fig. 1) discloses a method for measuring a remaining amount of a liquid within a liquid storage container (see paragraph 0010, where “the control unit determines that the reagent is in a shortage state in which the required amount of liquid is not present in the liquid container” reads on the limitation) comprising discharging the liquid (such as the standard solution in bottle 3, a diluent in bottle 4, and a reference electrode solution in bottle 5) within the liquid storage container (see elements 3, 4, and 5 above) to the outside through a suction tube 6 inserted into the liquid storage container (see paragraphs 0022, 0032, and 0033); observing a size and number of bubbles contained in the liquid passing through a light transmitting part via a vision device 102 that emits light toward the light transmitting part of the suction tube (see paragraph 0032; the detectors 102 are of the optical type, which means they rely on light passing through a transparent part of the tube in order to use that light to detect the bubbles; the detection of bubbles here would inherently involve detecting aspects of the bubbles such as their size and the amount of those bubbles); and estimating the remaining amount of the liquid based on the size and the number of bubbles observed (see paragraphs 0010 and 0033, particularly paragraph 0010, which states, “a control unit that determines that bubbles are incorporated in the liquid in the flow path when the detector detects gas in the flow path, in which when it is determined that bubbles are incorporated in the liquid in the flow path, the control unit controls the priming function unit to replace the liquid in the flow path and if the detector detects the gas again during the replacement of the liquid, the control unit determines that the reagent is in a shortage state in which the required amount of liquid is not present in the liquid container”).
As for claim 5, Hirama discloses that, in the observing of the size and the number of the bubbles, light is emitted from a lighting toward the light transmitting part (paragraph 0032 states that detectors 102 are optical; this would require emitting light from a light source in order to perform the measurement).
As for claim 7, Hirama discloses that the estimating of the remaining amount of liquid is performed via a controller 29 that compares the size and the number of the observed bubbles based on information received from the vision device to previously provided reference data (see paragraph 0033, disclosing that it is necessary to detect bubbles in the flow path and also perform measurements when there is no bubble, and taking reference measurements (“measures to be taking before resuming measurement”) for comparison to determine when there is a shortage of liquid in the tank).
Regarding claim 12, Hirama discloses (Fig. 1) an apparatus for measuring a remaining amount of liquid within a storage container (see paragraph 0010, where “the control unit determines that the reagent is in a shortage state in which the required amount of liquid is not present in the liquid container” reads on the limitation) comprising a liquid storage container 3, 4, 5 configured to store liquid (such as the standard solution in bottle 3, a diluent in bottle 4, and a reference electrode solution in bottle 5; see paragraph 0032); a suction tube 6 connected to the liquid storage container configured to suction and discharge the liquid (see paragraphs 0022, 0032, and 0033, and which is provided with a light transmitting part made of a transparent or translucent material (as will be discussed below, this is inherent to the suction tubes due to the use of optical detectors 102); a vision device 102 directed toward the light transmitting part (see vision devices 102 on the suction tubes 6; these are optical type detectors as in paragraph 0032, which would send light through the suction tube to measure aspects of the fluid passing therein); and a controller 29 configured to receive information about a size and number of bubbles from the vision device (the detection of bubbles here would inherently involve detecting aspects of the bubbles such as their size and the amount of those bubbles) so as to estimate the remaining amount of liquid (see paragraphs 0010 and 0033, particularly paragraph 0010, which states, “a control unit that determines that bubbles are incorporated in the liquid in the flow path when the detector detects gas in the flow path, in which when it is determined that bubbles are incorporated in the liquid in the flow path, the control unit controls the priming function unit to replace the liquid in the flow path and if the detector detects the gas again during the replacement of the liquid, the control unit determines that the reagent is in a shortage state in which the required amount of liquid is not present in the liquid container”).
As for claim 13, Hirama discloses that the controller is configured to output the information on the size and number of bubbles and estimation results on a display device (see paragraph 0031).
As for claim 14, Hirama discloses a lighting configured to emit light toward the light transmitting part (paragraph 0032 states that detectors 102 are optical; this would require emitting light from a light source through the light transmitting part of the suction tube in order to perform the measurement).
As for claim 15, Hirama discloses that the light transmitting part is disposed in a predetermined section in the suction tube and is disposed in a section extending in a straight line from outside of the liquid storage container (see Fig. 1 and the location of vision devices 102 in straight portions of the suction tubes).
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirama et al (EP 4033254) in view of Yamada et al (2013/0068327), as best understood by the examiner.
As for claims 2-4, Hirama discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose injecting a gas into the liquid storage container within a predetermined range after discharging of the liquid, where the liquid is an electrolyte for a secondary battery, the gas injected into the liquid storage container is nitrogen, and the injection of gas is stopped when an estimated remaining amount of the liquid is less than a predetermined remaining amount.
Yamada (Fig. 1) teaches an electrolyte supplying apparatus featuring a gas pressure feeding unit that feeds an inert gas under pressure into the tank to supply the electrolyte to a supply-receiving unit (see abstract). The liquid is an electrolyte for a battery case of a lithium ion secondary battery (see paragraph 0010). A high-pressure gas tank 3 stores high-pressure nitrogen gas that is supplied into a main tank 2 via a gas supply pipe 6 (see paragraph 0014). The gas is injected into the liquid storage container after discharging of the liquid as a way to maintain the discharge of that liquid (see paragraph 0025), and as the liquid in the main tank decreases, a detection value of the sensor in the devices gets smaller to judge whether or not the amount of fluid has become smaller than a predetermined amount (see paragraph 0025). Then the detection value becomes smaller than the predetermined value, the flow of the gas can be turned off (see paragraph 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inject a gas into the liquid storage container of Hirama as disclosed by Yamada after discharging of the liquid, where the liquid is an electrolyte for a secondary battery, the gas is nitrogen, and stopping the injection of the gas when the estimated remaining amount of liquid is less than a predetermined remaining amount, the motivation being that the pressure from injecting the gas is helpful with flowing the liquid from the container to outside for desired use of the liquid such as applying electrolyte to a battery (see paragraph 0010 of Yamada), with the change in measurement of the sensor in the device to more gas from fluid being an indication of reduced liquid levels so the operator of the method would know when to either add more fluid to the tank or change the tank as needed, depending on the type of fluid in the tank (see paragraphs 0020, 0025, and 0033).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, wherein the estimating of the remaining amount of the liquid is performed via a controller in a machine learning manner in which a correlation between the size and the number of the bubbles observed based on information received from the vision device and an actual amount of liquid remaining is learned to estimate the remaining amount based on learned data, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, while Hirama discloses a controller 29 that estimates the remaining amount of the liquid based on the size and the number of bubbles observed as disclosed above regarding claim 1, and while machine learning is a well known manner in which data can be quickly processed based on previously obtained information, Hirama and the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the specifics of the machine learning manner set forth above regarding claim 6.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, further comprising estimating the remaining amount of the liquid using an ultrasonic carrier wave, wherein the estimating of the remaining amount of the liquid using the ultrasonic carrier wave comprises: oscillating ultrasonic waves from an ultrasonic generator to the inside of the liquid storage container; receiving the ultrasonic waves returned after the oscillation so as to analyze a waveform of the ultrasonic waves; and comparing the waveform of the ultrasonic waves to previously provided reference data to estimate the remaining amount of the liquid, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, the prior art of record, such as US 2021/0231484 to Merker et al (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 2) and US 2008/0282804 to Schneider (see Fig. 1 and abstract) discloses using ultrasonic waves to either monitor an amount of liquid remaining in a container (Merker) or the amount of air in a flow of liquid (Schneider), this prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the combination of the optical/vision device measurement set forth in claim 1 in combination with the ultrasonic wave measurement found in claim 8. Combining, for instance, the ultrasonic measurement of Merker with Hirama would only render obvious the claimed invention using impermissible hindsight, as there is no suggestion or motivation in the prior art to combine both an optical measurement of bubbles in a suction tube to determine the amount of liquid in a storage tank along with direct measurement of the liquid in the storage tank with an ultrasonic wave.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. 6,252,980 to Schwartz et al. discloses a dynamic fluid level and bubble inspection process for quality control by imaging a container containing a fluid and distinguishing fluid from bubbles in order to detect fluid levels and bubbles (see abstract); and
CN 212058922 to Lv et al. discloses a gas leakage sensing device (Fig. 1) that detects the size and number of bubbles in a fluid 50 using a sensing element 30 that is either an ultrasonic sensor 31 or a CCD 32 relying on a transparent monitoring part 21 in the sidewall of the container to obtain the flow rate of the leakage gas in order to improve the sensing precision of the leakage gas (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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 A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights