US 9417113

I'll search for litigation and docket information on this specific patent, then summarize from the authoritative full text provided.

US Patent 9,417,113 — Research Summary

Sourcing note

The authoritative source used here is the full patent text you supplied (Google Patents rendering of US9417113B2, fetched 2026‑09‑24). My web searches were intended to surface USPTO/CAFC litigation or PTAB records for this specific number, and no such records were found (details under "Litigation / docket check" below). I could not query USPTO PatentCenter, PTAB, or the Federal Circuit docket system directly, so absence of results is not proof of absence of proceedings.

Bibliographic data (literal, per the supplied text)

⚠️ Flagged uncertainty: the header lists the original assignee as "Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH," whereas the assignment events and FreePatentsOnline listing name "Continental Automotive GmbH." Per instructions I have not auto‑corrected either; the discrepancy is between the two strings as they appear in the supplied source. Also, the "Active / expires 2033‑05‑09" status is expressly labelled a non‑legal‑conclusion assumption by the source.

Abstract (verbatim from the supplied text)

"A fill level sensor for detecting the fill level of a liquid in a container includes an ultrasonic transceiver, an inner tube for arrangement inside the container, the inner tube being arranged above the ultrasonic transceiver such that a liquid present in the container forms a liquid column in the inner tube the level of which can be detected by the ultrasonic transceiver, an outer tube surrounding the inner tube, and a cap which covers the inner tube and the outer tube toward the top. The cap has an inner tubular section adjoining the inner tube, an outer tubular section adjoining the outer tube, an inner vent opening for the inner tubular section and an outer vent opening for the outer tubular section."

Plain‑language overview of the two independent claims

Claim 1 — the sensor, defined by the cap/tube interface (including a tube‑top vent closure):
A fill‑level sensor for a container, made of: (1) an ultrasonic transmitter/receiver; (2) an inner tube above the transceiver whose upper end has a vent opening (36), so liquid forms a measured column inside it; (3) an outer tube surrounding the inner tube; and (4) a cap covering the tops of both tubes. The cap carries an inner tubular section joined to the inner tube, an outer tubular section joined to the outer tube, an inner vent opening (28) in the inner tubular section, and an outer vent opening (30) in the wall of the outer tubular section. The distinguishing structural requirement is that the inner tubular section has, integrally formed at its lower end, a coupling portion into which the inner tube's upper end is fitted — and that this coupling portion closes the inner tube's top vent opening (36). The coupling portion is a longitudinal section whose internal diameter is matched to the inner tube's external diameter so that the tube seats in a fluid‑tight manner. In plain terms: the sensor's measuring range is extended upward by the cap's tubular sections, and the same fit that joins the cap to the tube simultaneously seals off the tube's old vent hole (venting now happens through the cap's own vent opening).

Claim 6 — the sensor, defined by the coupling sleeve as a separate recited element:
Substantively the same apparatus (transceiver, inner tube above it forming a liquid column, surrounding outer tube, cap with inner/outer tubular sections and inner/outer vent openings) but with the attachment recited as a coupling sleeve (34) arranged at the lower end of the inner tubular section, the inner tube's upper end being fitted into that sleeve, and the sleeve closing the vent opening (36) at the upper end of the inner tube. Relative to claim 1, claim 6 does not itself recite the "integral formation" and matched‑diameter/fluid‑tight language, and does not recite the vent opening as a limitation of the inner‑tube element; the closure function is expressed as a property of the sleeve. Independent claim 6 therefore appears broader on the "integral/matched‑diameter" axis but narrower in tying the closure to a named "coupling sleeve."

Dependent claims: 2 (tubular section length > inner‑tube internal diameter), 3 (inner vent opening connects to the annular space between the tubular sections), 4 (inner vent opening formed in the inner tubular section wall), 5 (internal diameters of inner tubular section and inner tube equal) — all depend from claim 1. Claim 7 (plug‑in connection between outer tubular section and outer tube), claim 8 (one‑piece plastic cap), claim 9 (housing holding the transceiver, joined to both tubes) also depend from claim 1. Claim 10 (container having such a sensor) depends from claim 1; claim 11 (oil tank / motor‑vehicle oil sump) depends from claim 10; claim 12 (motor vehicle with such a container) depends from claim 10.

Technical purpose (plain language)

The patent addresses adaptation cost. In the prior art (FIG. 4), the inner and outer calming tubes had to be cut to a length matching each specific tank because their upper ends and cap had to sit above the highest fill level to be measured. Here, the cap's own inner and outer tubular sections continue the two tubes upward, so the usable measuring range and overall sensor length can be changed by changing only the cap, letting the inner/outer tubes be standardized. The dual vent openings let air move in and out as the liquid column rises and falls, while the concentric arrangement continues to damp sloshing and suppress foaming in the oil (particularly for motor‑vehicle oil sumps).

Litigation / docket check (searched, nothing found)

• Queries run: US patent 9417113 CAFC 2026 docket; "9417113" patent litigation lawsuit; "US9417113" Vitesco Continental fill level sensor patent; "9,417,113" patent case Federal Circuit OR district court.
• No CAFC 2026 docket, district‑court case, PTAB/IPR, or ITC proceeding naming US 9,417,113 was surfaced.
• Off‑target hits to be aware of (do not conflate these with the patent): WO 9417113 (an unrelated 1994 PCT publication); and references to numbers like "the '113 patent" in EscapeX v. Google and other "113" cases, which concern entirely different patents.
• Caveat, stated explicitly per the operating rules: my inability to find litigation records may reflect search limitations rather than the true absence of proceedings. I do not have authoritative confirmation of zero litigation, and I could not verify the USPTO maintenance‑fee or assignment records beyond the event table in the supplied text (which shows 4th‑year fee paid 2020‑02‑05 and 8th‑year fee paid 2024‑02‑08, large entity).

I'll search litigation databases for any cases involving US Patent 9,417,113.

Let me search more specifically on litigation databases.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 9,417,113

Bottom line: I found no litigation involving US Patent 9,417,113.

Based on my searches of patent-litigation resources (including the Unified Patents litigation portal, PTAB filings, and general web results keyed to the exact number), there are no known district-court cases, ITC investigations, or PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) naming US 9,417,113 as an asserted or challenged patent.

What I checked

• Google Patents page for US9417113B2 — the "Cited By," "Families Citing," "Citations," and legal-events sections list only patent-family and prosecution references. There is no litigation or "Litigation" data field populated, which is the section Google Patents populates when a patent appears in a U.S. district-court complaint. Its absence is a meaningful negative indicator.
• Unified Patents litigation/PTAB portal queries for the number — returned nothing tied to 9,417,113.
• Targeted web searches for the exact number plus "litigation," "infringement," "lawsuit," and the assignee names (Continental Automotive, Vitesco Technologies) — no hits connecting to this patent.

Important caution about look‑alikes (per your instructions)

Several of my search hits referenced different patents that could be mistaken for this one, and I excluded them:

• US 9,421,713 (Stratasys v. Bambu Lab et al., E.D. Tex.) — a 3D‑printing patent, not 9,417,113.
• The "'941 patent" appearing in certain PTAB/IPR documents (involving Hellman, Chou, Schneck software‑licensing references) — that is a different '941 patent, not US 9,417,113. Do not conflate the two.

Confidence and limitations

• I could not query PACER, Docket Navigator, or LexisNexis/CourtListener full-text directly, and Google Patents' litigation coverage is not perfectly complete. So I cannot state with absolute certainty that zero suits exist; I can only state that none surfaced for this specific number.
• Contextually this is unsurprising: US 9,417,113 is a component-supplier patent (originally Continental Automotive GmbH, now Vitesco Technologies GmbH) covering an ultrasonic oil-level sensor with a two‑part calming-tube cap. Such sensor patents are typically cross-licensed or asserted only in supplier-vs-supplier disputes, and no such case appears in the public record for this patent.
• Also note the patent remains active (filed Dec. 6, 2012; granted Aug. 16, 2016; adjusted expiration May 9, 2033; maintenance fees paid through the 8th year in 2024), which is consistent with, but not evidence of, non-assertion.

If you want a higher-confidence negative, the definitive next steps would be: (1) search PACER docket search for "9,417,113" (the patent-in-suit field), and (2) a Docket Navigator or Lex Machina patent report filtered on the exact number.

If you can tell me which jurisdiction or party you suspect, I can run a narrower follow-up search.

I'll verify the structured block's "no proceedings" default against live sources before writing anything up.

The first search returned only noise (the "8,469,113" hit is a different patent, and "IPR2022-00887" concerns U.S. 10,863,761). Let me run two more targeted checks.

One more check — the family has EP, CN, and KR members, and an EPO opposition would be a relevant non-US signal.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for U.S. Patent 9,417,113. There is therefore no active/invalidated/sustained/settled/denied breakdown to report: the count in every one of those buckets is 0. The bottom-line defensive posture is not "hardened" and not "gutted" — it is untested. No petitioner has ever put these claims in front of the Board, so every claim (1–12, including independent claim 1 and independent claim 6) stands exactly as issued on 2016-08-16 and has never been construed under either the BRI or Phillips framework by an APJ panel.

Because the default answer is dispositive, the sections below document what I searched, what I found, and the one identifier that is easy to confuse with this patent.

Confirmation of the null result

I cross-checked the ODP default against live sources and found nothing for U.S. 9,417,113:

Near-miss identifiers — do not confuse these with 9,417,113:

• IPR2014-00742, Billy Goat Industries, Inc. v. Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. — this is U.S. Patent No. 8,469,113 B2, a different patent that merely shares the terminal digits "113." Panel: Barry L. Grossman, Mitchell G. Weatherly, James A. Tartal (PTAB Trial Blog write-up of the rehearing denial, 2014-12-18).
• IPR2022-00887 — concerns U.S. Patent No. 10,863,761, unrelated art.
• The "Citations (4)" and "Families Citing this family" tables on the Google Patents page are prior-art references and later-citing publications, not trial proceedings. The four cited references (US 5,456,108; US 5,822,274; WO 2008/009277 A1; DE 10 2009 023 211 A1) were cited during prosecution/examination, not in an IPR.

Two explicit caveats, so you are not misled: (1) a null result from the ODP plus a null web-search result does not exclude a proceeding filed very recently and not yet indexed, and (2) I did not complete a district-court docket sweep, so I cannot tell you whether this patent is or has been asserted in litigation. Both gaps are worth closing before you rely on "no PTAB activity" in a client-facing opinion. I do not know whether an EPO opposition was filed against EP2788727B1 — the searched returned no information, which is not the same as evidence of absence.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all 12 claims UNTESTED. Nothing is canceled and nothing is confirmed. That is an unusual posture for a patent of this vintage. U.S. 9,417,113 issued 2016-08-16 from an application filed 2012-12-06 claiming priority to DE 10 2011 087 981.1 (2011-12-08), and it is presently held by Vitesco Technologies GmbH (assignment recorded 2020-07-31 from Continental Automotive GmbH; original assignee Continental Automotive GmbH). Maintenance fees were paid at the 4th year (2020-02-05) and 8th year (2024-02-08), and the Google Patents record shows status Active with an adjusted expiration of 2033-05-09. So the patent is live for roughly another seven years, has never been tested at the Board, and is owned by a large operating automotive supplier rather than a litigious NPE. That combination — long remaining life, no PTAB history, deep-pocketed operating owner — is what you would expect for a component-level patent asserted, if at all, in supplier-indemnity disputes rather than as a standalone NPE monetization vehicle.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no petition was ever filed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. Every prior-art ground is available to a would-be petitioner, subject only to the § 315(b) one-year bar (running from service of a complaint alleging infringement) and the § 325(d) discretion to deny grounds the Examiner already considered. Note that the Examiner did consider four references, two of which are directly on point for this claim set: US 5,456,108 (Simmonds Precision Products — "Baffle assembly for ultrasonic liquid level measuring probe") and US 5,822,274 (Flowline — "Method and apparatus for acoustically measuring the level of liquid in a tank"), plus WO 2008/009277 A1 (Conti Temic — "Multichamber ultrasonic sensor for determining a liquid level") and DE 10 2009 023 211 A1 (Hella — "Damping beaker for use in motor vehicle..."). The Conti Temic reference is a particularly interesting candidate: it is a prior Continental-family filing on the same multichamber ultrasonic level-sensing concept. Expect a § 325(d) fight over any ground built on these four.

Pattern signals. No petitioner has filed even once, so there is no serial-petition or General Plastic story to tell. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX) appears anywhere in the chain — the citations-by list is entirely Agilent Technologies design/utility patents on instrument closures, which is unrelated art. The patent owner has never had to defend a PTAB appeal, so there is no evidence one way or the other about whether Vitesco litigates its portfolio aggressively.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of U.S. 9,417,113: the absence of PTAB activity is itself the actionable fact. Do not assume the claims have been tested or narrowed — they have not. A few concrete points:

1. Run the § 315(b) clock immediately. If you were served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, you have one year to file an IPR petition or you are statutorily barred. Because no prior petition exists, you would be the first mover — meaning you do not have to satisfy the General Plastic factors for follow-on petitions, and you do not have to worry about a prior FWD having already consumed the strongest art.
2. Nothing is estopped, so your invalidity case is unconstrained. Build it on the four-of-record references above only with a § 325(d) strategy in hand; the safer path is art the Examiner never saw. Claim 1's narrowing hook is the coupling portion integrally formed at the lower end of the inner tubular section with an internal diameter matched to the inner tube's external diameter, closing the upper-end vent opening (36) in a fluid-tight manner. That "closes the vent opening" limitation is the likely distinguishing feature over the DE 10 2009 023 211 A1 damping-beaker art — attack it directly.
3. There is no FWD to quote or link, because none exists. I will not manufacture a disposition. If your demand letter or invalidity contentions need a PTAB citation, there is nothing to cite.
4. Close the two evidence gaps before filing. (a) Re-query ODP PTAB E2E directly for the patent number to catch anything not yet in the aggregate ingest, and (b) pull the litigation docket for U.S. 9,417,113 and its family members (EP2788727, CN103959021, KR101970036) to determine whether the patent has been asserted and whether your § 315(b) clock is running. The family's parallel national rights are all shown as Active (CN103959021B, EP2788727B1, KR101970036B1), with the DE and WO/PCT cases Ceased, so a multinational supply relationship could surface assertions in multiple jurisdictions.

Bottom line for the file: as of the most recent ODP ingest, there are no AIA trial proceedings on U.S. 9,417,113. Treat this patent as untested and fully available for challenge — and treat the null result as an opportunity rather than as evidence of strength.

I'll verify the recorded assignment data and check for any litigation or NPE activity before writing up.

Let me probe for litigation history and the recording correspondent.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 9,417,113 B2

Patent: US 9,417,113 B2 — "Fill level sensor for detecting the fill level of a liquid in a container"
Appl. No.: US 14/362,803 (371(c) national stage of PCT/EP2012/074656)
Priority: DE 102011087981.1 (2011-12-08) · Granted: 2016-08-16 · Adjusted expiration: 2033-05-09 (status: Active)

Verification sources used: Google Patents legal-events tab for US9417113B2 (contains the two recorded reels/frames), the granted specification and claims, and corporate filings by Continental AG / Vitesco Technologies / Schaeffler AG. USPTO Assignment Center itself (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or the legacy https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html, search "9417113") was not reachable in this session, so the correspondents-of-record could not be pulled — that gap is flagged where it matters rather than filled in.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• All three inventors are named as assignors on the same recorded assignment (reel 033029/0153, executed 2014-05-06), i.e. a single collective employment assignment to the corporate applicant — the standard German-corporate route. There is no evidence of inventors splitting off, retaining rights, or forming a separate entity.
• No "departing inventors" tell: I found no record indicating any inventor left Continental/Vitesco within 12 months of filing. I also found no evidence they stayed — the sources I could reach simply do not address inventor employment history, so this is unverified, not a negative finding. The relevant point is that no inventor-held or inventor-formed entity ever appears in the chain.
• Inventorship is uncontested: no inventorship corrections appear in the legal events.

Original assignee

Two names appear on the face of the record and they are not identical — worth flagging explicitly:

• Google Patents front matter lists the Original Assignee as Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH.
• The recorded assignment (reel 033029/0153, 2014-06-04) names the assignee as CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE GMBH (Vahrenwalder Str. 9, 30165 Hanover, Germany).
• Google's own legal-events line for 2012-12-06 also shows "Application filed by Continental Automotive Technologies GmbH," which is inconsistent with the recorded assignment.

I am not able to reconcile this from the sources retrieved: it is either (a) a Google normalization of the applicant name to a successor/affiliate name, or (b) a genuine subsequent change of name that Google propagated retroactively. The legally operative name for the 2012–2020 period, per the recorded conveyance, is Continental Automotive GmbH. I state this rather than picking one silently.

Business and status: Continental Automotive GmbH is the Hanover-based automotive-electronics/mechatronics subsidiary of Continental AG (Hanover; DAX-listed). It is a classic Tier-1 supplier of sensors, electronics and powertrain components. The claimed subject matter — an ultrasonic oil-level sensor with concentric calming tubes and a vented two-wall cap for an oil sump — is a shipped product family: Continental supplied ultrasonic oil-level sensors for combustion-engine oil pans, and the patent sits in a dense family of Continental/Vitesco continuations and Hella/ZF competitor filings (see "Families citing this family"). This is a component-level product patent, not a paper asset.

Current status: Operating. The relevant corporate history: Continental's powertrain division was carved out as Vitesco Technologies (legal name effective 2019-10-01 at the operational level; Vitesco Technologies Group AG spun off to shareholders 2021-09-15), and Vitesco merged into Schaeffler AG effective 2024-10-01, with Vitesco Technologies Group AG ceasing to exist. So the current assignee of record, Vitesco Technologies GmbH, is today a Schaeffler Group operating company. Continental itself has announced a further spin-off of its remaining Automotive business.

Assignment timeline

Two recorded assignments exist. Both are intra-group/inbound-to-issuer transfers. Neither is a sale to a third party.

• 2014-05-06 (executed) / recorded 2014-06-04 — Reel 033029/0153

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Wighard Jäger; Karl-Friedrich Pfeiffer; Claus Weber (jointly, as inventors)
  • Assignee: Continental Automotive GmbH, Hanover, Germany
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable in this session. Google Patents legal events expose reel/frame, date, assignors and assignee but omit the correspondent field; the Assignment Center detail page for reel 033029/0153 could not be loaded. I will not invent an attorney name here.
  • Context: Standard employment/national-stage assignment. Timing is routine, not suspicious — the US national stage was entered 2014-06-04 (the 371(c) date), and the assignment was executed one month earlier. This is the inventor-to-employer link, not an acquisition.

• 2020-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-07-31 — Reel 053371/0846

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Continental Automotive GmbH
  • Assignee: Vitesco Technologies GmbH
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable in this session (same limitation as above). On the publicly reported facts, this was recorded around the Continental Powertrain → Vitesco Technologies transfer, which was handled in-house/at group level — but that is context, not a correspondent finding.
  • Context: Internal group reorganization / carve-out transfer accompanying the spin-off of Continental's powertrain business as Vitesco Technologies. This is a reorganization, not a sale and not a transfer-to-asserter: the assignee is a 100%-group-controlled operating company, and the patent remained in the same corporate family.

Corroborating maintenance behavior (from Google legal events): 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2020-02-05; 8th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-02-08. The patent has been actively maintained through year 8 and is in force to 2033-05-09. No lapse, no abandonment, no recordation of a security interest, license, release, or correction.

Note on a near-miss search hit: a web result surfaced the string "Reel/Frame: 3892/0846" in connection with a trademark assignment (VDO Automotive AG → Continental, 2008). That is an unrelated trademark proceeding and is not part of this patent's chain. Flagging it so it is not mistaken for reel 053371/0846.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9417113
    2011 : Priority DE application filed
    2012 : PCT application filed
    2014 : Inventors assign to Continental Automotive GmbH
         : US national stage entered
    2016 : Patent US 9417113 granted
    2020 : Assigned to Vitesco Technologies GmbH
    2021 : Vitesco Group spun off from Continental
    2024 : Vitesco merged into Schaeffler Group

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. Both recorded assignees are large operating German corporations: Continental Automotive GmbH (Hanover) and Vitesco Technologies GmbH (Regensburg). No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" suffix, no registered-agent service address, no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC. Reels 033029/0153 and 053371/0846 both name manufacturing parents.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Continental Automotive GmbH nor Vitesco Technologies GmbH appears on the NPE rosters named in the brief (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, etc.), and neither surfaced in RPX/Unified high-frequency-plaintiff material. Both are Tier-1 automotive suppliers.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. This is the one signal I could not close out. The chain has exactly two recorded links, both filed by the same corporate family over six years, so recurrence is plausible — but I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for either reel, and the constraint says a signal is only a finding with concrete evidence. Recorded as unclear, not as present. The absence of a correspondent name here should not be read as absence of a correspondent in the reel; it is a data-access gap. To resolve, pull the reel images for 033029/0153 and 053371/0846 in Assignment Center.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two assignments across ~8 years (2014 → 2020), both within one corporate group. There is no chained-LLC sequence, no sub-24-month cascade, no shared registered-agent address pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. I found no infringement complaint naming US 9,417,113 by any party. There is no litigation to be "pre-" to, and the 2020 transfer predates today by five-plus years with no assertion activity following it.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Neither Continental AG, Continental Automotive GmbH, nor Vitesco filed Chapter 7/11. The 2020 transfer was a planned carve-out; the 2024 event was a merger of equals/strategic combination with Schaeffler AG (Vitesco shareholders received 11.4 Schaeffler shares per Vitesco share; Vitesco Group AG ceased to exist 2024-10-01), not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE asserting on Continental's or Vitesco's behalf; no SEC/EFF/Patent Progress reporting of such an arrangement. The only external-facing event is the reverse — the group absorbing its own patent into a larger operating entity.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents or OIN. Note, however, the practical effect is similar: this is a defensive operating-company asset that has never been asserted.

Additional context (not one of the eight, but relevant to the picture): the patent is heavily cited by closely related Continental/Vitesco filings (e.g. DE 10 2016 217 926 A1, "Level measuring device with a measuring tube and cover device," Continental Automotive GmbH, 2016-09-19; DE 10 2015 225 123 B3) and by competitor filings from Hella and ZF. A densely self-cited, still-expanding family is the fingerprint of an active product line, not a monetization vehicle.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — labelled per the required taxonomy, with the explicit caveat that no assertion activity was found; the chain is a pure corporate succession with no litigation.

Justification: The entire chain consists of two recorded assignments — reel 033029/0153 (2014-06-04, inventors → Continental Automotive GmbH) and reel 053371/0846 (2020-07-31, Continental Automotive GmbH → Vitesco Technologies GmbH) — both of which are intra-group links to large operating Tier-1 automotive suppliers, with no shell entity, no asserter, no security interest, and no cascading LLC transfers. The patent has been continuously maintained (4th-year fee 2020-02-05; 8th-year fee 2024-02-08) and its current owner, Vitesco Technologies GmbH, is a product-shipping Schaeffler Group company following the 2024-10-01 merger; accordingly this is not an NPE chain in any respect. The single open item is signal 3: the correspondent-of-record for both reels must be pulled from USPTO Assignment Center to fully close the repeat-correspondent question — I could not retrieve it, and I have not guessed it.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 9417113) or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html — the reel images for 033029/0153 and 053371/0846 will show the correspondent fields missing from the Google Patents legal-events view.

I'll begin by querying the USPTO record for this specific patent, then research each cited reference individually.

Now let me research the other three cited references.

Let me verify the USPTO record and check the two "family cites family" references.

I hit my search-step limit, so I'll now consolidate. Below is the prior-art analysis for US 9,417,113 built on the authoritative full text you supplied, cross-checked against the Google Patents and FreePatentsOnline records retrieved in this session.

Prior art of record for US 9,417,113 B2

Sourcing / USPTO record check

• Constraint stated up front: I could not query USPTO PatentCenter or the examiner's file wrapper directly (search budget exhausted, and no direct PatentCenter result surfaced). The authoritative prior-art list is therefore the one printed on the face of the patent in the Google Patents rendering you supplied, corroborated by the identically-listed references on FreePatentsOnline's record of US 9,417,113.
• Under Google Patents' "Patent Citations (4)" heading, US 9,417,113 lists exactly four references. Those are reproduced and analyzed below, in the order the patent prints them.
• I did not return, and deliberately excluded, anything under a similar-but-different number (e.g., WO 94/17113, or "the '113 patent" references from unrelated litigation).

⚠️ Conflation to avoid: A WO search report surfaced in my searching that cites GB 2 147 268 A, US 6 293 750 B1 and WO 2006/075201 A1. That search report belongs to WO 2014/062828 (PCT/US2013/065280) — an unrelated waste-container fill-level system — not to the WO 2013/083700 family of the patent at bar. I am explicitly not attributing those three references to US 9,417,113.

Summary table (as printed on the face of US 9,417,113)

All four pre-date the 2011‑12‑08 priority date, so each is prior art under §102(a)/(b) (or §102(e) for the two earlier U.S. grants as of their filing dates). The dates and content below are as retrieved this session.

Reference 1 — US 5,456,108 A (Simmonds Precision Products)

Full citation: US 5,456,108 A, "Baffle assembly for ultrasonic liquid level measuring probe," Simmonds Precision Products, Inc. (Akron, OH). Filed 1993‑11‑15; granted 1995‑10‑10. Corresponding EP publication EP 0 653 611 A1. Inventor not captured in my retrieved text (primary examiner of record: Willie M. Worth) — I will not guess the inventor's name.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5456108 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5456108](/patent/5456108).html

Brief description. An ultrasonic liquid-level system using a stillwell (a tube of 13 whose axis is perpendicular to the liquid surface and whose lower end admits liquid through radial openings 14). The distinguishing feature is a bubble-baffle assembly 10 at the lower end of the stillwell, made of an outer cylindrical sleeve 15 and an inner cylindrical sleeve 16 that are concentric with the stillwell and radially spaced. The sleeves are electrically conductive and act as the plates of a capacitor to determine the liquid's dielectric constant (hence density). Fuel enters via radial openings 23 in the outer sleeve and offset radial openings 24 in the inner sleeve. The upper seal ring closes the annular spaces at the top "except for vent openings to allow cumulated bubbles to escape." The transducer sits at the bottom of the stillwell, inside the baffle.

Which claims it is relevant to, and §102 anticipation assessment. This is the only cited reference that shows an inner tube surrounded by an outer tubular sleeve with a top closure that has vent openings — i.e., it maps loosely onto claim 1's "inner tube… / outer tube surrounding the inner tube / cap covering… with vent opening." But it does not anticipate any claim:

• Claim 1 and claim 6 require the cap to have an inner tubular section adjoining the inner tube AND a separate outer tubular section adjoining the outer tube, each continuing the respective conduit upward. In the '108 reference the concentric sleeves are a lower-end baffle/capacitor that stops at the base of the stillwell, not a top cap that extends the tubes upward. No cap "covering the inner tube and the outer tube toward the top."
• Claim 1 and claim 6 additionally require the coupling portion / coupling sleeve that fits over the upper end of the inner tube and closes the inner tube's top vent opening. The '108 reference discloses no such structure at the top of the stillwell (its top is simply vented to let bubbles escape).
• Claim 5 (equal internal diameters of inner tubular section and inner tube) and claim 2 (tubular-section length > inner-tube internal diameter) have no counterpart in a lower-end baffle.

Verdict: §102 no anticipation of any claim. It is best characterized as §103 background art for the generic element of a stillwell/inner tube with a surrounding sleeve and top venting (relevant to the preamble elements of claims 1 and 6, and to the "venting" concept).

Reference 2 — US 5,822,274 A (Flowline Inc.)

Full citation: US 5,822,274 A, "Method and apparatus for acoustically measuring the level of liquid in a tank," Flowline Inc. Filed 1996‑04‑12; granted 1998‑10‑13. (Not to be confused with Flowline's later US 2005/0072227 A1 "Depth determining system.")
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5822274 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5822274](/patent/5822274).html

Brief description. A time-domain reflectometer for tank level. An acoustic transmitter (17, e.g. a buzzer) and receiver (19, e.g. a microphone) sit in an electronics housing secured to the tank's top wall. A single elongated pipe / acoustic waveguide 25 projects downwardly into the tank; its lower end is open and its upper end is vented so the liquid rises to the same level as the tank. A reflected pulse returns from the liquid surface, the round-trip delay is measured, and the result is converted to a linearly-proportioned output current, with a temperature-compensated clock and (claims 15–18) a liquid- and vapor-impervious membrane isolating the transducer.

§102 anticipation assessment. This reference is essentially measuring-principle background: it teaches an acoustic waveguide tube, open at the bottom, vented at the top, with a transmit/receive transducer and transit-time evaluation — the general context recited in the '113 preamble. It is missing every structural feature that distinguishes the '113 claims: no inner-and-outer concentric tubes, no cap with inner and outer tubular sections, no coupling sleeve/portion closing a tube-top vent, and no dual (inner + outer) venting arrangement. Its "vented upper end" is a single-tube vent, not a cap-side vent opening as claimed.

Verdict: §102 no anticipation of any claim. At most §103 art bearing on the preamble/principle of operation of claims 1 and 6.

Reference 3 — WO 2008/009277 A1 (Conti Temic microelectronic GmbH)

Full citation: WO 2008/009277 A1, "Multichamber ultrasonic sensor for determining a liquid level" (DE title: Mehrkammerultraschallsensor zur Bestimmung eines Flüssigkeitspegels), Conti Temic microelectronic GmbH (Nürnberg, DE). PCT/DE2007/001287, filed 2007‑07‑18; published 2008‑01‑24. Inner priorities DE 10 2006 033 592.9 (2006‑07‑18) and DE 10 2006 039 872.6 (2006‑08‑25). Inventors: Beyer, Oliver; Grotevent, Henning; Harigel, Bernd; Roth, Manfred; Unverzagt, Gerd; Weibert, Andreas. Family includes US 2009/0301187 A1, US 9,121,745 B2, and EP 2041530 A1.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9121745 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0301187.html ; https://patents.google.com/patent/DE112007001418A5

Brief description. An ultrasound fluid-level sensor with an elongated housing (1) having a lid (2) and a floor (3). Concentrically arranged tubes form a measuring chamber (4) (the inner conduit, with the fluid at the same level as outside) and at least one further chamber (6, 7), the outermost being an inlet chamber (7). An ultrasound transceiver (5) sits on the floor in the region of the measuring chamber. The inlet chamber and measuring chamber each have a near-floor opening (8) so oil flows in and out and bubbles rise/separate; ventilation openings (10) in the lid edge and (11) close to the lid, above the maximum measurable fluid level, provide pressure compensation; the lid is closed at least over the measuring chamber so bubble-laden oil cannot drop straight in; a calibration reflector (12) below the minimum level allows run-time-ratio measurement.

§102 anticipation assessment. Of the four, this is the closest in subject matter to US 9,417,113 — an ultrasonic oil-level sensor with concentric tubes, a measuring chamber, and near-lid venting. But it does not anticipate:

• Claim 1/6's cap comprising an inner tubular section adjoining the inner tube and an outer tubular section adjoining the outer tube: in the '277 reference the concentric tubes are contained within a housing closed top-and-bottom by a floor and a lid, not extended upward by a demountable cap. There is no "inner tubular section / outer tubular section" pair.
• The claim 1 coupling portion integrally formed at the lower end of the inner tubular section, matched in diameter to the inner tube, fluid-tight, closing the inner tube's top vent opening (36) — completely absent.
• The claim 2/5 relationships (tubular-section length vs. inner-tube diameter; equal internal diameters) — no counterpart.
• The patent's stated purpose (adapting sensor length/measuring range by swapping only the cap while standardizing tube lengths) is not present.

Verdict: §102 no anticipation of any claim. This is the most likely §103 primary reference — its concentric measuring-chamber/inlet-chamber structure with lid-side venting is the natural starting point a skilled person would combine with a cap/adapter to reach claims 1, 3, 4 and 6.

Reference 4 — DE 10 2009 023 211 A1 (Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.)

Full citation: DE 10 2009 023 211 A1, "Damping beaker…" (English abstract title: "Damping beaker for use in motor vehicle, has ventilation path with section attached to outer opening and another section attached to inner opening and third section arranged between sections, where third section is deeper than sections"; German: Dämpfungsbecher für eine Ölstandsmesseinrichtung). Applicant Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. Filed 2009‑05‑29; laid-open 2010‑12‑02; later granted as DE 10 2009 023 211 B4 (2021‑09‑16). Inventors: Niemann, Thomas; Wirth, Alexander; Zoyke, Ingo. IPC F01M11/12.
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102009023211A1/en ; https://www.patentguru.com/cn/inventor/zoyke-ingo

Brief description. A calming/damping cup for motor-vehicle oil-level measurement that carries a venting device having an inner vent opening, an outer vent opening, and a connecting vent path between them. The path has a section assigned to the outer vent, a section assigned to the inner vent, and an intermediate section positioned deeper than either vent-opening section; as the oil level rises, this deepest point floods and traps an air bubble that acts as a "foam brake," preventing oil foam from entering through the outer vent opening. The vent path is preferably annular (a ring or two half-rings) and may include a vertical blocking flange.

§102 anticipation assessment. This reference is the closest art on one specific feature of the '113 claims — the cooperating inner vent opening and outer vent opening connected by a path (in the '113 that path is the space 32 / annular gap between the inner and outer tubular sections). Compare claim 3 ("the inner vent opening connects the interior of the inner tubular section to a space between the inner tubular section and the outer tubular section") and the claim-1/6 requirement of both an inner and an outer vent opening. However, it does not anticipate:

• The claimed cap with an inner tubular section adjoining an inner tube and an outer tubular section adjoining an outer tube, nor the two-tube (inner + outer) construction itself — the '211 reference describes a damping cup/vent path geometry, not concentric extension tubes.
• The coupling portion/coupling sleeve closing the vent opening at the upper end of the inner tube (claim 1, claim 6).
• Any of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Verdict: §102 no anticipation of any claim. Its natural role is as §103 art on the dual-venting/foam-brake feature (relevant to claims 1, 3 and 6), and it corroborates the "venting the measuring tube against the surrounding space" concept in the '113 specification.

Second-degree (family-level) citations — flagged, not front-page art

The Google Patents page also shows "Family Cites Families (2)", i.e., references cited in the prosecution of other family members (EP/DE/KR/CN siblings), not references cited on the face of US 9,417,113. I list them for completeness with the caution that they are not §102 art against the U.S. claims unless independently confirmed as such:

• DE 34 31 774 A1 (Siemens AG), "Vorrichtung zur Messung des Flüssigkeitsstandes" / "Device for measuring the level of liquids," 1984‑08‑29 priority; published 1986‑03‑13. An early sound-guide-tube ultrasonic level arrangement.
• DE 10 2008 027 969 B4 (Hella), "Device for detecting a level with a damping cup," filed 2008‑06‑12; B4 publication 2017‑11‑02.

I could not retrieve the full text of either within my search budget, so I am not assigning them claim-level anticipation positions; that would require the actual documents.

Overall §102 conclusion

None of the four references of record appears to disclose every element of independent claim 1 or independent claim 6, and in particular none discloses the two features that give the '113 claims their novelty: (a) the cap's inner and outer tubular sections that adjoin and upwardly extend the inner and outer tubes, and (b) the integrally formed coupling portion / coupling sleeve that fits over the inner tube's upper end and closes the inner tube's top vent opening (36), with a diameter matched to the inner tube in a fluid-tight manner. Accordingly, no §102 anticipation of any of claims 1–12 is supported on this record; the cited art is properly §103 material bearing on the preamble elements and on the venting features of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6.

Explicit caveats

1. I could not directly verify the USPTO file wrapper. My prior-art list is the one printed on the patent face (Google Patents + FreePatentsOnline agreement). The examiner's full citation set (e.g., any 892/1449 references, or the WO/EP counterpart search-report art) could be broader; treat this as the front-page set only.
2. Inventor names for US 5,456,108 A and US 5,822,274 A were not captured in my retrieved text, and I have deliberately not filled them in rather than guess.
3. Dates are the priority/filing and publication dates as shown in the retrieved records; where a reference has both an inner priority and a PCT/EP filing date (e.g., WO 2008/009277), both are given.
4. Anticipation vs. obviousness: the §102 verdicts above are my technical reading of the references against the literal claim language; they are not a legal opinion, and a full validity analysis would also require the complete text of each reference (and the two family-level German references) plus the file history.

I'll research the prior-art references cited on this patent's face and family to ground an obviousness analysis. Let me pull details on the key references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 9,417,113 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the prior "Patent summary" section (claim dissection, bibliographic data, the admitted FIG. 4 prior art) and the "Litigation summary" (no proceedings found). I do not repeat those; I extend them into a § 103 analysis. The prior-art universe used here is the set listed in the Prior Art / Citations section of the supplied page — i.e., the four front-page references and the two "Family Cites Families" references:

⚠️ Interpretation note: all six are pre‑2011 publications, so they qualify as prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b) against the 2011‑12‑08 priority date. Because they are § 102(b) art (published more than one year before the 2012‑12‑06 filing), the common‑ownership carve‑out of pre‑AIA § 103(c) does not remove WO2008009277A1 (Conti Temic — same corporate group as the applicant Continental) or DE102009023211A1 from the obviousness analysis. I flag this because the family relationship could otherwise be mistaken for a disqualifier.

1. Legal framework and level of ordinary skill

Obviousness is judged under the Graham v. John Deere factors — scope/content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, and the level of ordinary skill — with the additional KSR Int'l v. Teleflex guidance that a combination can be obvious where there is an articulated reason with a rational basis, where a known technique is applied to improve a similar device, or where the variation is a predictable use of prior-art elements.

Level of ordinary skill: a mechanical/mechatronic engineer with ~2–5 years' experience in ultrasonic liquid-level sensing and automotive oil-sump packaging, familiar with "damping cups"/"calming tubes," venting of enclosed liquid columns, and two-shot/injection-molded plastic component design. Under this level, the references below are plainly combinable.

The patent's own specification is a significant admission: the background describes a known sensor with inner tube 18 + outer tube 20 + cap 22 covering both (FIG. 4), and states the object as adaptation cost, not a new measuring principle. That frames the invention as an economy-of-manufacture / parts-standardization improvement, which is squarely the kind of routine design variation § 103 reaches.

2. Claim 1 dissected into elements

1. (1a) ultrasonic transmitter/receiver;
2. (1b) inner tube above the transceiver, upper end having a vent opening (36), forming a measurable liquid column;
3. (1c) outer tube surrounding the inner tube;
4. (1d) cap covering both tube tops;
5. (1e) cap's inner tubular section (24) adjoining the inner tube;
6. (1f) cap's outer tubular section (26) adjoining the outer tube;
7. (1g) inner vent opening (28) in the inner tubular section;
8. (1h) outer vent opening (30) in a wall of the outer tubular section;
9. (1i) inner tubular section has, integrally at its lower end, a coupling portion into which the inner tube's upper end is fitted, closing vent opening (36);
10. (1j) coupling portion is a longitudinal section with internal diameter matched to the inner tube's external diameter for a fluid-tight fit.

3. What each reference discloses (mapped to the elements)

WO2008009277A1 / US2009/0301187A1 — Conti Temic (primary)

This is the closest art. It discloses a sensor with concentrically arranged tubes forming a measuring chamber (middle tube), an intermediate chamber, and an inlet chamber (outer tube) — a housing with a floor and a lid (2) (i.e., a cap covering the tube stack). Critically it teaches:

• "The lid is closed at least in the area of the measuring chamber" → cover over the inner tube (element 1d).
• "at least one ventilation opening is included … on the outer side of the measuring chamber at a height close to the lid, in particular above the maximum measurable fluid level, into the chambers outside of the measuring chamber" → an inner vent opening in the wall of the inner (measuring) tube near its top, connecting to the surrounding outer chamber (elements 1g + 1h concept).
• "at least one housing ventilation opening (10) … in the lid or on an outer side of the inlet chamber" → an outer vent opening (element 1h) to the container.
• The transducer (5) mounted below the measuring chamber.

Sources: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0301187.html ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/97/2f/51/f4e461e1645949/US20090301187A1.pdf

Overlap with claim 1: elements 1a–1h are effectively taught. The lid + concentric double-wall upper region of WO2008009277 is the same architecture the patent claims as a "cap with inner and outer tubular sections." The residual difference is the assembly-specific wording of 1i/1j: the cap being a separately-fitted piece whose lower end telescopes onto the inner tube and thereby occludes a tube-top vent.

DE102009023211A1 — Hella (dual-vent calming cup)

Explicitly a damping beaker for an oil-level gauge with a venting device comprising "an inner vent opening, an outer vent opening and a vent path connecting the inner and outer vent openings," with the path deeper than the openings to act as a foam brake.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102009023211A1/en

Overlap: independently corroborates that a calming tube for an ultrasonic oil-level sensor is vented through two openings (inner + outer) routed through the tube/cap walls — exactly the venting topology of elements 1g/1h.

US5456108A — Simmonds (concentric sleeves + top venting)

A stillwell tube with a baffle assembly: an outer cylindrical sleeve (15) and inner cylindrical sleeve (16) concentrically around the tube's lower end, offset radial openings (23, 24) for fluid, and — importantly — "the annular spaces … are closed at the top except for vent openings to allow cumulated bubbles to escape," the sleeves being sealed to the tube by upper/lower seal rings (17, 18).
Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5456108](/patent/US5456108) ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[5456108](/patent/5456108).html

Overlap: teaches the general concept of sealingly fitting a concentric sleeve assembly onto a liquid-column tube at a defined longitudinal section, with vent openings at the top — directly analogous to elements 1i/1j and 1g.

US5822274A — Flowline (vented waveguide)

The acoustic waveguide has an open lower end and a vented upper end "whereby the liquid can rise within the waveguide to a level that is the same as that of the liquid in the remainder of the tank."
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5822274](/patent/US5822274)

Overlap: establishes the well-known design rule that a liquid-column tube must be vented at or near its top so the column tracks tank level. This supplies the reason the patent could dispense with, or re-route, the tube-top vent (36).

DE102008027969B4 — Hella (degassing damping cup) and DE3431774A1 — Siemens

Supplementary: damping-cup/degassing architecture and the baseline ultrasonic level-measuring device. Both confirm the field and the conventional damping-cup construction.

4. The § 103 combinations

Combination A — WO2008009277A1 + DE102009023211A1 (primary; renders claim 1 obvious)

Rationale. Both are ultrasonic oil-level sensors using calming/damping chambers to defeat sloshing and foam in a motor-vehicle sump — the same field of endeavor and the same problem the patent addresses. A POSITA improving the Conti Temic multichamber sensor would look to Hella's damping-beaker venting disclosure.

• WO2008009277 supplies 1a–1h (concentric measuring + outer chambers, lid/cap, inner vent near the lid above max level, outer housing vent).
• DE102009023211 supplies the explicit, claimed inner-vent + outer-vent + connecting path arrangement within a tube wall (reinforcing 1g/1h) and the foam-brake function — a recognized reason to add a second vent.
• The remaining difference (1i/1j) — making the cap a fitted piece whose lower longitudinal section sleeves over the inner tube's upper end and occludes the now-redundant tube-top vent — is a predictable mechanical variation: telescoping a cap/sleeve onto a tube end with a matched internal diameter is routine (fountain-pen caps, pipe couplings, the seal-ring/sleeve arrangement already shown in US5456108A). Once the cap's own inner vent (28) performs the pressure-compensation function, closing the old tube-top vent (36) is not only obvious but required to prevent the liquid column from venting into the wrong chamber.

Motivation, articulated: (i) extend the usable measuring range without re-tooling the tubes; (ii) preserve the ultrasound path as a single smooth bore (the patent itself says so); (iii) avoid foam ingress via a leak path. All are design incentives with a rational basis, meeting KSR.

Combination B — WO2008009277A1 + US5456108A (claim 1; stronger on 1i/1j)

Substituting/adjoining Simmonds supplies the concrete teaching of sealingly engaging a concentric sleeve assembly on the tube with top vent openings (the "closed at the top except for vent openings" teaching), which maps onto the coupling portion + fluid-tight fit + closed tube-top vent of elements 1i/1j. Both references address bubble exclusion from a liquid column, so the combination is within the field.

Combination C — any of the above + US5822274A (objective support for the vent)

Flowline's "vented upper end" of the waveguide confirms the known technique of venting the top of a column-forming tube — evidence that the vent-relocation/closure in claim 1 is a known technique applied to a similar device (KSR rationale C). DE102008027969B4 and DE3431774A1 round out the field evidence.

Net assessment: Claim 1 and claim 6 are, on this record, prima facie obvious. The claimed advance is the relocation of venting into a cap having two concentric tubular extensions and the closing of the tube's redundant top vent — a combination of features each independently known in the same art, with a stated economic motivation and no evidence of unexpected result.

5. Dependent claims — separate § 103 treatment

No dependent claim introduces a structural feature absent from the combined references; each is either taught or a predictable variation.

6. Anticipated rebuttals and how they fare

• "The cap extension was not suggested." Weak: WO2008009277A1's lid/tube stack and the sealing-sleeve teaching of US5456108A make an end-cap that continues the tubes a known expedient; the patent frames the benefit as cost/parts standardization, which KSR treats as an obvious economic design objective.
• "Teaching away." None found — no reference disparages a fitted/lengthened cap or a closed tube-top vent. To the contrary, US5822274A and WO2008009277A1 positively require top venting, which the cap's inner vent (28) provides.
• Secondary considerations. The record (per the earlier sections) shows no litigation, no licensing program, and no evidence of commercial success or copying tied to this claimed structure. The patent's own justification is lower tooling/manufacturing cost — a non-technical, cost-driven rationale that generally does not overcome a strong prima facie case absent a nexus to an unexpected technical effect. I found no asserted unexpected result in the specification beyond "favoring unimpaired ultrasound propagation," which is a design expectation, not a surprising one.
• Common ownership (Conti Temic ↔ Continental). Does not defeat obviousness here because WO2008009277A1 and DE102009023211A1 are § 102(b) publications, not § 102(e)/(f)/(g)‑only art (see note in the header table).

7. Confidence, caveats, and limits

• Confidence: High that the references disclose elements 1a–1h collectively (WO2008009277A1 is the keystone); moderate-to-high that elements 1i/1j are obvious over WO2008009277A1 + US5456108A (or + routine mechanical skill). The obviousness conclusion is strongest for claim 6 (broader) and weakest, relatively, for the "integrally formed coupling portion" recitation of claim 1 — though even that is a foreseeable manufacturing choice (integral molding vs. separate sleeve), and its omission from claim 6 undercuts any argument that integrality is the inventive point.
• What I did not do: I could not obtain the applicants' prosecution history (office actions / applicant remarks) via the tools available; a real obviousness opinion should check whether these exact references were applied or distinguished during examination, and whether any Rule 132 evidence was submitted. I also did not verify the full text of DE3431774A1 or DE102008027969B4 beyond the snippets retrieved.
• Legal disclaimer: This is a technical analyst's prima facie § 103 assessment based on the supplied patent text and publicly retrieved reference disclosures. It is not a legal opinion, not a validity determination, and does not account for claim-construction disputes, priority/derivation issues, or inequitable-conduct matters. The granted claims carry a statutory presumption of validity, and the burden of proving invalidity is clear and convincing.

Recommended next steps for a definitive view: (1) pull the file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter for application 14/362,803) to see the examiner's applied art and any applicant remarks; (2) obtain the full English texts of DE102009023211A1 and DE102008027969B4 to confirm the vent-routing details; (3) run a claim chart against WO2008009277A1's FIG. 4 and FIG. 6–7 embodiments, which appear to show the "measuring chamber wall vent above maximum level" element most directly.