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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 JANUARY 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (371 of PCT/EP2019/025427, filed 03 December 2019) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (DE102018131950.9, filed 12 December 2018) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 17 OCTOBER 2025 have been entered.
Claims 28-38, 41-43, 46, and 49 have been amended. Claims 26-50 are pending with Claims 26, 27, and 43 withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 28 with respect to the rejections of Claims 28-42 and 44-50 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 28 with respect to the rejections of Claim(s) 28-37, 40-42, 44-46, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WOLF et al. (US 2003/0025598 A1) are persuasive; these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 28-37, 40-42, 44-46, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over WOLF et al. (US 2003/0025598 A1) in view of GEYER (US 2004/0103883 A1) and SEBESTYEN et al. (US 2010/0139254 A1); Claim(s) 38, 39, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF in view of GEYER, SEBESTYEN, OKORO et al. (US 2020/0009485 A1), and WELLNHOFER (US 6,290,652 B1); and Claim(s) 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF in view of GEYER, SEBESTYEN, and OKORO.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 OCTOBER 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. All rejections in the previous Office action have been withdrawn. However, as noted above, upon further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made for Claim(s) 28-37, 40-42, 44-46, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over WOLF et al. (US 2003/0025598 A1) in view of GEYER (US 2004/0103883 A1) and SEBESTYEN et al. (US 2010/0139254 A1); Claim(s) 38, 39, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF in view of GEYER, SEBESTYEN, OKORO et al. (US 2020/0009485 A1), and WELLNHOFER (US 6,290,652 B1); and Claim(s) 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF in view of GEYER, SEBESTYEN, and OKORO.
Regarding “Rejections under 35 USC § 101” (pg. 10-11) and “Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103” (pg. 11-13), Applicant’s arguments have been considered. As noted above, the as-amended claims have successfully overcome the prior art rejections of the previous Office action. As such, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because they are directed to grounds of rejection that have been withdrawn. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the presently pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28-37, 40-42, 44-46, 48, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF et al. (US 2003/0025598 A1) in view of GEYER (US 2004/0103883 A1) and SEBESTYEN et al. (US 2010/0139254 A1).
Regarding Claim 28, WOLF discloses an apparatus for monitoring replaceable parts in an assembly, such as a filter element (p0002), e.g., filters useful for filtering oil in an internal combustion engine of a motor vehicle (i.e., [a] device for determining at least one operating parameter of a filter or of a filter cartridge situated in the filter, the filter or the filter cartridge installed on an associated device; p0003, p0015).
The apparatus comprises a memory component attached to the replaceable part that stores information related to said part (p0011); this memory component stores specific data that is read by reading devices and compared in an evaluation unit (p0013). The memory component further includes a transponder, e.g., a chip with an integrated antenna unit, that is capable of transmitting the data across a distance so as to be considered contactless data transmission (i.e., at least one transponder situated on or in the filter cartridge or in a filter housing of the filter; p0019). Such a transponder can be read by a reader or reading device (p0013) in a contactless manner (p0018), e.g., a hand-held reader (i.e., a reading device situated external to the filter or filter cartridge and configured to query the at least one transponder in a contactless manner; p0035).
The chip further includes integrated sensors that detects pressure, temperature, residual oil content, etc. (i.e., at least one operating parameter of a filter or of a filter cartridge situated in the filter; influences; p0019); specifically, the chip measures a differential pressure (i.e., the first transponder being a first pressure sensor, the influences including at least a pressure value acting on the filter cartridge; p0022). The transponder system transmits data to a base station; and the base station evaluates the transmitted data (p0021). In embodiments shown in FIGs. 2 and 4, WOLF discloses that a transponder system comprises the transponder 6, sensor 11, oscillating circuit 7, resistor 8, and coil 9 and a remote base station 12 with antenna 13 that detects “influence” from the oscillating circuit of the transponder, e.g., via an electromagnetic field (i.e., a first transponder of the at least one transponder, which is exposed to influences acting on the filter cartridge in the filter during operation and is sensitive to the influences, is modified by one or more of the influences on the first transponder or on the conducting or damping properties of a transmission path of electromagnetic signals between the first transponder and the reading device with regard to a response behavior of the first transponder; FIG. 2, p0032). After receiving influence from the transponder, the base station 28 transmits the signals to a central station 29, 30 where the data is evaluated and processed or transmitted to a user (i.e., an evaluation unit configured to analyze a response of the at least one transponder to evaluate the at least one operating parameter of the filter or filter cartridge; FIG. 4, p0034).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WOLF is deficient in disclosing “a pressure valve connected to the reading device, the evaluation unit, and the associated device, the pressure valve configured to control an operation of the associated device based on the analysis of the evaluation unit”.
GEYER discloses a fuel injection device that includes a fuel metering device 34 (i.e., the associated device) that adjusts the flow of fuel to a high-pressure pump 18 via a connection 16 that includes a fuel filter 20 (p0008, p0011). The metering device 34 comprises an actuated control valve (i.e., a pressure valve) switched by an actuator 36 controlled by an electronic control unit 38 (ECU is correlated with the claimed reading device and evaluation unit). Reservoir 24 includes a pressure sensor 40 also connected to ECU 38. ECU 38 triggers the actuator 36 to adjust the flow of fuel to the high-pressure pump 18 to maintain a preset pressure in the reservoir 24 (i.e., the pressure valve configured to control an operation of the associated device based on the analysis of the evaluation unit; p0011). Advantageously, this control valve disclosed by GEYER provides for the accurate delivery of fuel to increase fuel economy (p0003-0004). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a pressure valve connected to the reading device, the evaluation unit, and the associated device, the pressure valve configured to control an operation of the associated device based on the analysis of the evaluation unit as taught by GEYER for the device taught by WOLF.
Modified WOLF is deficient in disclosing or suggesting “a second transponder of the at least one transponder is protected against or is durable against the influences acting on the filter cartridge in the filter during operation, the second transponder corresponding to a control status representing a control transponder, the second transponder being a second pressure sensor” and “wherein a status of the filter or of the filter cartridge is determined based on a comparison of the modification of the first transponder by the one or more influences and the control status of the second transponder when the second transponder is not exposed to the one or more influences”.
SEBESTYEN discloses a system that monitors injection of a fluid in an engine exhaust gas system (abstract). The exhaust gas system comprises an internal combustion engine 1, an exhaust gas pipe 2, a filter 3, common fuel tank 5, after treatment injector (ATI) 6, conduit 7, pressure sensor 8, and a valve flow regulator 9 of which, the ATI, pressure sensor, and regulator are connected to an electronic control unit (ECU) 10 (p0045). The pressure sensor 8 is located in conduit 7 between the ATI 6 and valve flow regulator 9; the system utilizes a pump to increase the pressure from a common fuel tank 5 through the ATI 6 to achieve a desired pressure as measured by the sensor 8 (p0045). However, as recognized by SEBESTYEN, undesired small fluctuations may occur due to oscillating backpressures downstream of the ATI in the exhaust gas conduit that will affect the pressure sensed by the pressure sensor 8 (p0013). The prior art teaches the use of a second pressure sensor located in the exhaust gas conduit to measure these oscillating pressures to filter out the background pressure fluctuations from the pressure sensor 8 readings (p0013).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Advantageously, the use of a reference/calibrating second pressure sensor as taught by the prior art would provide a better match of actual pressure fluctuations at the specific location for which the main pressure sensor is monitoring (p0013, end). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a second transponder corresponding to a control status representing a control transponder, the second transponder being a second pressure sensor and being protected against influences acting on the first transponder and that the status of a device is determined based on a comparison of the influenced first transponder and the control status of the second transponder as taught by SEBESTYEN for the device made obvious by modified WOLF. It is understood that SEBESTYEN is deficient in associating a filter or filter cartridge with the disclosed pressure sensors. However, the claimed invention is directed toward utilizing a reference or calibrating sensor to serve as a control from which the primary sensor can be used to measure pressure changes and account for background pressure noise; such a concept is disclosed by SEBESTYEN and would be obvious to adapt to the pressure sensing device disclosed by WOLF.
Modified WOLF is deficient in disclosing or suggesting “when at least one of the status of the filter or of the filter cartridge or the at least one operating parameter is outside of an acceptance threshold, the evaluation unit issues a command to close the pressure valve to block operation of the associated device having the filter”. However, such a limitation is directed toward a manner or method of how the claimed device is used. The manner or method in which an apparatus is to be utilized is not subject to the issue of patentability of the apparatus itself (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); MPEP §2115). In this case, GEYER discloses that the ECU 38 controls the actuator 36 in such a way to adjust a flow of fuel to the high-pressure pump 18 to maintain a preset pressure (p0011), i.e., this implies that the ECU is capable of closing the actuator 36 when a preset pressure has been reached, i.e., the evaluation unit is capable of issuing a command to close the pressure valve. Thus, the prior art discloses or at least suggests a device capable of performing the intended manner or method by which the claimed invention is used.
Regarding Claims 29 and 30, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses that the transponder/memory component is integrated into the filter element, e.g., a plastic wall 4 of the filter element 1 (i.e., a housing or casing of the at least one transponder in the filter comprises a material; FIG. 1). WOLF further discloses that the values that are monitored include, e.g., temperature and pressure within the filter element (i.e., a housing or casing of the at least one transponder in the filter comprises a material that is configured to be attacked or destroyed by at least one of chemical, biological, physical, or mechanical attack (Claim 29); a housing or casing of the at least one transponder in the filter is configured to be modifiable, by at least one of chemical, biological, physical, or mechanical action, in its conducting or damping properties for electromagnetic signals transmitted between the at least one transponder and the reading device (Claim 30); the at least one transponder as a whole, or at least a component of the at least one transponder, is configured to be damaged or destroyed to such an extent that the response behavior of the at least one transponder, readable by the reading device, is modified thereby (Claim 29); wherein the response behavior of the at least one transponder, acquirable by the reading device, is modifiable thereby (Claim 30); p0034).
Furthermore, the limitations with respect to the housing or casing of the at least one transponder being configurable to be modifiable, attacked, damaged, or destroyed are considered inherent. Anything and everything are subject to modification, attack, damage, and destruction (e.g., everything is disposable). Absent reasons as to why the housing or casing of the at least one transponder is configured to be modified, attacked, damaged, or destroyed would be considered critical, significant, or provide unexpected results, such limitations would be anticipated by or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The mere potential for a device or an element of a device to be modified or damaged is not patentably significant.
Furthermore, the requirement that the “response behavior of the at least one transponder… is modified thereby” (Claim 29) is directed toward an intended result from the use of the claimed device. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. Because the prior art, singly or in combination, teaches all claimed structural language, the “adapted to” or “adapted for” clause in question is optional and does not limit the claim. The clause expresses the intended use of the claimed structural element and thereby, does not further limit the claim (MPEP §2111.04).
Furthermore, the requirement that the “response behavior of the at least one transponder… is modifiable thereby” (Claim 30) are considered optional limitations because there is no explicit requirement that such response behavior be modified—the limitations only require that the response behavior be capable of being modified. WOLF discloses a transponder circuitry (FIG. 2) that capably sends modifiable electromagnetic signals based on the degree of influence that impinges on the integrated sensor.
Regarding Claim 31, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. As shown in FIG. 2, the transponder 6 and associated oscillating circuit 7, resistor 8, coil 9, and rectifier 10 define a circuit that modifies an electromagnetic signal received by the base unit 12 (FIG. 2; p0032). WOLF further discloses the memory component/transponder is integrated into the filter element such that the sensor is capable of being influenced by, e.g., pressure and temperature (i.e., wherein the at least one transponder is situated in a region of the filter occupied in temporal succession by media…; wherein the response behavior of the at least one transponder, acquirable by the reading device, is modifiable thereby; p0033-0034).
Furthermore, the requirement that the “response behavior of the at least one transponder… is modifiable thereby” is considered an optional limitation because there is no explicit requirement that such response behavior be modified—the limitation only requires that the response behavior be capable of being modified.
Regarding Claims 32, 33, and 35, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses that multiple different sensors (e.g., for detecting pressure and temperature) can be integrated in a transponder chip (i.e., wherein the at least one transponder is configured to be sensitive to two or more different influences; p0019), or as simply shown in FIG. 2, a transponder integrates only a single sensor 11 (i.e., wherein the at least one transponder is configured to be sensitive to a single determined influence).
Furthermore, as is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, different sensors for different influences comprise different materials, e.g., pressure sensors rely on strain gauges, whereas temperature sensors rely on semiconductors. Thus, the limitation requiring that the housing or casing of the at least one transponder has regions made of at least two different materials that are sensitive to different influences is anticipated.
Regarding Claim 34, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses that a sensor detects temperature (p0019; p0032; p0034). WOLF further discloses that in the event a sensor indicates an improper use of the replaceable filter element, an error flag may be transmitted to a higher level control unit to register said improper use (i.e., a one-time exceeding of a specifiable boundary temperature to which the at least one of the at least one transponder or the housing or casing of the at least one transponder is exposed, the response behavior of the at least one transponder, acquirable by the reading device, is permanently modified; p0014).
Regarding Claim 36, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses in FIG. 1 that a memory component/transponder is attached to a plastic wall of the filter element (p0029). As is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, the electrical resistance path of plastic is different from that of conventional circuitry, especially that of a transponder shown in FIG. 2 (i.e., wherein the housing of the casing of the at least one transponder has at least one region forming an electrical resistance path).
Furthermore, the requirements that the claimed electrical resistance path have an electrical resistance that “is measureable by the at least one transponder or an electronics unit allocated to the at least one transponder” or that the at least one region forms “a modification in a measured resistance causing a modification of the response behavior of the at least one transponder that is detectable by the reading device or the evaluation unit” or “that permits a statement to be made about the at least one operating parameter of the filter or filter cartridge” are all directed toward optional limitations. Such limitations only require the electrical resistance path or its electrical resistance be capable of being measured by the at least one transponder or form a response behavior that is capable of being detected by the reading device/evaluation unit or be capable of forming “a statement”. In any case, any surface or element directly or indirectly impinging on the transponder circuitry taught by WOLF will inherently influence signal path transmission to coil 9 and thereby influence the electromagnetic signal received by a base station/reader. Therefore, these instant limitations are inherently anticipated by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 37, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses a plurality of transponders, e.g., 24, 25, 26, 27, in a vehicle monitoring temperature, oil content, differential pressure, valve conditions, and additional values or states (p0034, FIG. 4). As noted earlier, WOLF also discloses multiple different sensors integrated in a transponder chip (p0019). Thus, WOLF discloses the limitation two or more transponders, each sensitive to a single determined influence, or two or more transponders, each sensitive to two or more different influences.
Regarding Claim 40, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses the memory device/transponder can be integrated in the mounting flange or adhesive chamber of the filter element (p0016) or even attached to the plastic wall of a filter element (p0029) or even integrated on the filter element itself (p0033). Such disclosures read on the limitation requiring the at least one transponder is attached on or in a filter material body of the filter cartridge or on or in at least one end plate of the filter cartridge or on or in a wall of the filter housing.
Regarding Claim 41, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses filters useful for filtering oil in a motor vehicle engine (i.e., wherein the device comprises part of a fuel filter or motor oil filter or hydraulic oil filter or transmission oil filter; p0003, p0015). WOLF further discloses a plastic wall (i.e., the housing or casing of the at least one transponder…is made at least in part of a material that by at least one of fuel or oil or one or more substances contained in the fuel or in the oil, is attackable or decomposable or modifiable; p0029).
Furthermore, the limitations with respect to the housing or casing of the at least one transponder being attackable or decomposable or is modifiable is considered inherent. Anything and everything are subject to modification, attack, and decomposition (e.g., everything is disposable). Absent reasons as to why the housing or casing of the transponder is attackable, decomposable, or modifiable would be considered critical, significant, or provide unexpected results, such limitations would be anticipated by or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The mere potential for a device or an element of a device to be modified or damaged is not patentably significant.
Furthermore, such a limitation is considered optional because there is no explicit requirement that such housing or casing of the transponder actually be attacked, decomposed, or modified—the limitations only require that the housing or casing of the transponder be capable of being attacked, decomposed, or modified.
Regarding Claim 42, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses the memory component/transponder is attached a plastic wall (i.e., wherein the housing or casing of the at least one transponder… is made at least in part of a material that through contact with at least one of microorganisms or water is attackable or decomposable or is modifiable in its conducting or damping properties; p0029).
Furthermore, the limitations with respect to the housing or casing of the transponder being made of a material that is attackable or decomposable is considered inherent. Anything and everything are subject to attack and decomposition (e.g., everything is disposable). Absent reasons as to why the housing or casing of the transponder is attackable or decomposable would be considered critical, significant, or provide unexpected results, such limitations would be anticipated by or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The mere potential for a device or an element of a device to be attacked or decomposed is not patentably significant.
Furthermore, such a limitation is considered optional because there is no explicit requirement that such housing or casing of the transponder being made of a material actually be attacked or decomposed—the limitations only require that the housing or casing of the transponder be capable of being attacked or decomposed. Even plastic is decomposable and certainly is capable of being subject to attack.
Regarding Claims 44 and 45, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses the transponder is capable of transmitting an electromagnetic field that is readable by the antenna of a base station (p0032); while not explicitly stating “RFID”, such a disclosure is recognizable by any one of ordinary skill in the art to be the claimed RFID transponder. WOLF further discloses the transponder may be a passive transponder in that it does not comprise a battery (i.e., the at least one transponder is at least one passive RFID transponder; p0020). WOLF further discloses the transponder may also be an active or semi-active transponder which, by definition, requires its own battery (i.e., the at least one transponder is at least one semi-active RFID transponder or at least one active RFID transponder having its own electrical energy source; p0020).
Regarding Claim 46, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 45. The limitation requiring that “the at least one semi-active or active RFID transponder is configured for an automatic modification” is directed toward an automatic means. Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace an otherwise manual activity that accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish the invention over the prior art (MPEP §2144.04 III). WOLF discloses that the transponder is capable of detecting certain parameters (e.g., temperature or pressure) on a sensor and sending via electromagnetic signal data to a base unit (i.e., the at least one semi-active or the at least one active RFID transponder is configured for an automatic modification of items of digital response signal information that are to be outputted; the modification taking place as a function of modifications of the at least one operating parameter of the filter or filter cartridge acquired by the at least one transponder or by at least one sensor allocated thereto; p0031, p0032).
Regarding Claim 48, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. WOLF further discloses the reader can be a hand-held reader (i.e., wherein the reading device is a separate handheld mobile device; p0035).
Regarding Claim 49, as described in the rejection of Claim 28, WOLF discloses a transponder as part of an apparatus for monitoring replaceable parts in an assembly, such as a filter element (p0002). The transponder includes a sensor, a capacitor, a resistor, and a coil and is readable by a base unit via electromagnetic field (p0032).
The limitations requiring “the filter cartridge being exchangeable” and that “the at least one transponder [is] configured to be modifiable” are directed toward optional limitations. The limitations only require that the filter cartridge and the transponder be capable of being exchangeable and modifiable, respectively. Everything is certainly capable of being exchanged or modified.
Claim(s) 38, 39, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF et al. (US 2003/0025598 A1) in view of GEYER (US 2004/0103883 A1) and SEBESTYEN et al. (US 2010/0139254 A1), as applied to Claims 28 and 44 above, and further in view of OKORO et al. (US 2020/0009485 A1) and WELLNHOFER (US 6,290,652 B1).
Regarding Claim 38, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 28. The prior art is deficient in disclosing the second transponder, situated on or in the filter cartridge, that is protected against or is durable against all influences acting during operation of the filter, is configured as identification bearer and proof of originality of the filter cartridge that is unmodifiable.
OKORO discloses a system for determining whether an authorized or genuine filter element is installed in a filtration system (abstract). In this filter monitoring system, the system provides feedback as to whether an authorized/approved or unauthorized filter element is installed by use of RFID technology, i.e., each authorized filter cartridge is assembled with an RFID tag, which is programmed with a unique code specific to a given filter element (i.e., identification bearer and proof of originality of the filter cartridge that is unmodifiable; p0015, p0031). The system further includes RFID readers that can read the RFID tag information and feed any detected information to the monitoring system; the monitoring system subsequently determines if an authorized filter element is installed (p0015). OKORO further discloses that the tag is constructed in such a manner that prohibits removal and replacement to prevent abuse of the tag (i.e., protected against or is durable against all influences acting during operation of the filter; p0032). The RFID tag is secured to any component of the filter element, e.g., an endcap, the filter media, the frame, or the packaging of the filter element (p0017). Advantageously, the use of such a permanently unmodifiable transponder as that taught by OKORO prevents the installation of a defective or unauthorized filter or hence the improper use of the filtration system (p0003). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include at least one transponder bearing permanently unmodifiable identification and proof of originality and being durable against influences as taught by OKORO in the device taught by WOLF.
Modified WOLF is deficient in disclosing that the second transponder (i.e., a pressure transducer) is this instantly claimed transponder that bears permanently unmodifiable identification and proof of originality.
WELLNHOFFER discloses a method that allows for the correction of a pressure profile for a wide variety of systems (c2/40-50). Although WELLNHOFFER discloses such a method primarily for use in blood pressure measurement instruments, this art is considered analogous art because it discloses the use of multiple pressure transducers in the measurement of a differential pressure. The prior art discloses that a processing unit utilizes signals sent by a reference/calibrating pressure transmitter (uniquely distinct from a primary pressure transducer) to ensure that measurements collected from the pressure transducer are properly compared with experimentally found responses (c4/44-61). As recognized by WELLNHOFFER, there are various systems which are differently designed; as such, measured pressures require a reliable correction using the proper corresponding database (c4/44-49). Advantageously, the use of the reference/calibrating pressure transmitter for proper system identification allows for the collected signals to be correctly assigned to respective correction records (c4/44-50). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the second transponder as an identification bearer and proof of originality of the device that is unmodifiable as taught by WELLNHOFFER for the device made obvious by modified WOLF.
Furthermore, the limitations “protected against or is durable against” and “unmodifiable” are directed toward optional limitations for the second transponder. These limitations only require that the second transponder is capable of being durable or unmodifiable. There are no explicit requirements that the second transponder possesses such functionalities.
Regarding Claim 39, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 38. OKORO further discloses each authorized filter cartridge is assembled with an RFID tag, which is programmed with a unique code specific to a given filter element (p0015, p0031). OKORO further discloses multiple tags can be associated with each filter element and that each tag has its own unique identification number (i.e., in all transponders allocated to a filter or to a filter cartridge, identification codes are stored that correspond with one another and that are readable by the reading device; p0035).
Furthermore, the limitation that the transponders are “readable by the reading device” is directed toward an optional limitation of the transponders. Transponders by definition produce electromagnetic fields that are capable of being recognized and read by a reader device. The requirement that they are “readable” does not require that the transponders be read by the reader device.
Regarding Claim 47, modified WOLF makes obvious the device of Claim 44. WOLF further discloses the memory element is attached to the replaceable part, i.e., integrated in the filter element (p0016). However, the prior art is deficient in disclosing the at least one passive RFID transponder is situated on a carrier foil that is at least one of bonded, glued or welded, to an inner surface of the filter housing or to the filter cartridge.
OKORO discloses the use of RFID transponder tags in the identification of filter elements (abstract). OKORO discloses the tags may be secured to locations on the filter element (e.g., the housing of the filter element including the inner surfaces of the end caps, the frame of the filter element; i.e., the at least one passive RFID transponder is situated on a carrier foil… to an inner surface of the filter housing or to the filter cartridge; p0017) via an adhesive (i.e., a carrier foil that is at least one of bonded, glued or welded; p0036). As is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, the use of an adhesive or a bonding element advantageously enhances the ability for an attachable element to be sufficiently retained to a surface and prevents said element from being dislodged or lost. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective, individual functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP §2143.01 A).
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOLF et al. (US 2003/0025598 A1) in view of GEYER (US 2004/0103883 A1) and SEBESTYEN et al. (US 2010/0139254 A1), as applied to Claim 49 above, and further in view of OKORO et al. (US 2020/0009485 A1).
Regarding Claim 50, modified WOLF makes obvious the filter cartridge of Claim 49. The prior art is deficient in disclosing at least one transponder protected or durable against all influences acting during filtration operation, as a permanently unmodifiable identification bearer and proof of originality of the filter cartridge.
OKORO discloses a system for determining whether an authorized or genuine filter element is installed in a filtration system (abstract). In this filter monitoring system, the system provides feedback as to whether an authorized/approved or unauthorized filter element is installed by use of RFID technology, i.e., each authorized filter cartridge is assembled with an RFID tag, which is programmed with a unique code specific to a given filter element (i.e., a permanently unmodifiable identification bearer and proof of originality of the filter cartridge; p0015, p0031). The system further includes RFID readers that can read the RFID tag information and feed any detected information to the monitoring system; the monitoring system subsequently determines if an authorized filter element is installed (p0015). OKORO further discloses that the tag is constructed in such a manner that prohibits removal and replacement to prevent abuse of the tag (i.e., protected or durable against all influences acting during filter operation; p0032). Advantageously, the use of such a permanently unmodifiable transponder as that taught by OKORO prevents the installation of a defective or unauthorized filter or hence the improper use of the filtration system (p0003). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to include at least one transponder bearing permanently unmodifiable identification and proof of originality and being durable against influences as taught by OKORO in the device made obvious by modified WOLF.
Furthermore, the limitations “protected or durable against” and “permanently unmodifiable” are directed toward optional limitations for the at least one transponder. These limitations only require that the at least one transponder is capable of being durable or permanently unmodifiable. There are no explicit requirements that the at least one transponder possesses such functionalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN B HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0327. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/Ryan B Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights