DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 23rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 43-62 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 23rd, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed December 23rd, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 43-62 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of International Patent Publication No. WO 2016173849 A1 to Noack, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0007730 A1 to Swales.
It should be noted that Applicant argues that “Swales does not show a sensor configured to provide control values for determining if a pressure source is operating or not.” (See Pg. 10 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed December 23rd, 2025) However, Applicant does not provide any evidence to support such an assertion. As is further described below, Swales teaches a sensor configured to provide control values for determining if a pressure source is operating or not (¶0034 “In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit (not shown) which will generate a warning signal indicative of seal failure.”).
Claim Objections
Claims 43, 50, and 60 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 43, lines 24-25, “and method further comprising” should read “and the method further comprising”
In claim 50, line 11, “such that in response to leak occurring” should read “such that in response to a leak occurring”
In claim 50, lines 20-21 “to allow monitoring that the pressure source is operating properly” should read “to allow monitoring to establish that the pressure source is operating properly”
In claim 60, line 6, “wherein the gasket configured to seal” should read “wherein the gasket is configured to seal”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 43-45, 49-57, and 59-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Patent Publication No. WO 2016173849 A1 to Noack (hereinafter referred to as Noack), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0007730 A1 to Swales (hereinafter referred to as Swales).
Regarding claim 43, Noack teaches a method of improving leak tightness in a seal between a frame of a filter element and a mounting structure against which the frame of the filter element is mounted (Fig. 2, partition wall 2 and filter head portion 8; Pg. 2, “by monitoring the pressure level of the sealing air, the operability of the seal can be checked.”), comprising: applying a pressure to an intermediate gasket space of one or more sealing arrangements by a pressure source (Pg. 4, “The arrow indicated in FIG. 2 symbolizes the inflow of compressed air into the gap of the seal”), said one or more sealing arrangements comprising a gasket arranged to seal a gap formed between a first element and a second element (Fig. 2), wherein the gasket is arranged to be located in the gap and to be in contact with the first and the second elements, the first element being comprised in the frame of the filter element (Fig. 2, filter head portion 8) and the second element is comprised in the mounting structure against which the frame of the filter element is mounted (Fig. 2, partition wall 2), and in that the gasket comprises two elongated gasket members located at a distance from each other (Fig. 2, sealing ribs 9, 10) so as to form an intermediate gasket space confined by the two elongated gasket members (Fig. 2, gap 11), said pressure source being configured to maintain a set pressure difference towards a surrounding environment (Pg. 2, “The sealing air is under pressure compared to raw and clean air”), wherein the method comprises continuously applying pressure to the intermediate gasket space by the pressure source during operation of the filter element, such that in a response to a leak occurring between one of the gasket members and the first or second element, or within the gasket members or the first and second elements, the pressure within the intermediate gasket space will prevent any substance from passing through the gap, since the pressure within the intermediate gasket space will force a leaking substance to move in a desired direction (Pg. 2, “The sealing air is under pressure compared to raw and clean air and is supplied to the partition via a connection. Even in the event of possible leaks, the passage of raw or clean air into the respectively adjacent area of the air filter is avoided since the raw or clean air would first have to overcome the blocking air for this purpose.”). Noack does not teach a control sensor located between the pressure source and the surrounding environment, said control sensor being configured to communicate with an evaluation device, wherein the method further comprises obtaining a control value from a control sensor and, if said control value from the control sensor deviates from a control setpoint value, establishing that the pressure source is not operating.
However, Swales teaches a sealing arrangement (Abstract) between two elements (Fig. 3, wall frame 22 and sterilizer-side flange 42) that has an intermediate gasket space formed by two gasket members (Fig. 3, gaskets 52, 54 and gap/seal chamber 60), wherein the sealing arrangement further comprises a control sensor located between the pressure source and the surrounding environment (Abstract “The seal chamber may be pressurized with a fluid and then the pressure within the seal chamber monitored by a pressure sensor; See also Fig. 3, sensor probe 62), said control sensor being configured to communicate with an evaluation device (¶0034 “In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit”), wherein the method further comprises obtaining a control value from a control sensor and, if said control value from the control sensor deviates from a control setpoint value, establishing that the pressure source is not operating (¶0034 “In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit (not shown) which will generate a warning signal indicative of seal failure.”).
Noack and Swales are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealing arrangements. The modification of Noack to incorporate the sensor as taught by Swales would allow for remote monitoring and would remove the need to physically examine the sealing arrangement to determine whether a leak has occurred. It therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Noack to include the sensor as taught by Swales.
Regarding claim 44, Noack and Swales teach a method as applied to claim 43 above. Swales further teaches continuously obtaining said control values from the control sensor and continuously comparing said control values with the control setpoint values (¶0034 “where there is leakage through or around either of the gaskets 52, 54, pressure in the seal chamber 60 will drop, which will be detected by the pressure sensor 62. In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit”).
Regarding claim 45, Noack and Swales teach the method as applied to claim 44 above. Swales further teaches activating a backup pressure source if said control value from the control sensor deviates from said control setpoint value (¶0035 “Furthermore, provision of dual seal gaskets 52, 54 provides added security in that detection of a leak is likely to occur when just one of the two gaskets, 52, 54 is defective, thereby without loss of sterilization or containment in the associated room 10/12”). Furthermore, a backup pressure source would be obvious to incorporate in case of failure, maintaining the pressure in the intermediate gasket space if the initial source is not working. Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the case of providing a backup pressure source, the result that is produced is neither new nor unexpected. See MPEP §2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claim 49, Noack and Swales teach a method as applied to claim 43 above. Swales further teaches wherein the sealing arrangement further comprises a leakage monitoring device comprising a leakage sensor (¶0006 “wherein the filler material provides a measurable characteristic; and at least one sensor disposed to measure said measurable characteristic.”) positioned in a conduit between the pressure source and the intermediate gasket space (Fig. 3, sensor probe 62 is inside of gap/seal chamber 60), the method further comprising continuously monitoring of leak tightness by continuously obtaining a leakage detection value from the leakage sensor (¶0006 “wherein the filler material provides a measurable characteristic; and at least one sensor disposed to measure said measurable characteristic.”), comparing said leakage detection value with a setpoint value (¶0034 “pressure in seal chamber 60 will drop, which will be detected by the pressure sensor 62.”); and if said leakage detection value from the leakage sensor is equal to or exceeds said setpoint value, generating a message indicating leakage (¶0034 “where there is leakage through or around either of the gaskets 52, 54, pressure in the seal chamber 60 will drop, which will be detected by the pressure sensor 62. In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit”).
Regarding claim 50, Noack teaches a sealing arrangement (Fig. 2) comprising: a gasket arranged to seal a gap formed between a first element and a second element (Fig. 2, two sealing ribs 9 and 10), wherein the gasket is arranged to be located in the gap and to be in contact with the first and second elements (Fig. 2, sealing ribs 9 and 10 are located in a gap between and in contact with filter head portion 8 and partition wall 2), the first element being comprised in a frame of a filter element (Fig. 2, filter head portion 8 ; Fig. 1, head portion 8 frames filter 4); and the second element is comprised in a mounting structure against which the frame of the filter element is mounted (Fig. 3, filter 4 is mounted on partition wall 2), and in that the gasket comprises two elongated gasket members located at a distance from each other so as to form an intermediate gasket space confined by the gasket members and said first and second elements (Fig. 2, sealing ribs 9 and 10 form gap 11 which is confined by the two sealing ribs 9, 10 and filter head portion 8 and partition wall 2), wherein the sealing arrangement further comprises a pressure source adapted to continuously apply a pressure on the intermediate gasket space during operation of the filter element (Pg. 5, “characterized in that an additional device … is provided with compressed air, by means of which in addition to a constant supply of sealing air, an additional compressed air pulse can be generated.”), such that in response to a leak occurring between one of the gasket members and the first or second element, or within the gasket members or the first and second elements, the pressure within the intermediate gasket space will prevent any substance from passing through the gap, since the pressure within the intermediate gasket space will force a leaking substance to move in a desired direction (Pg. 2, “The sealing air is under pressure compared to raw and clean air and is supplied to the partition via a connection. Even in the event of possible leaks, the passage of raw or clean air into the respectively adjacent area of the air filter is avoided since the raw or clean air would first have to overcome the blocking air for this purpose.”), said pressure source being configured to maintain a set pressure difference towards a surrounding environment (Pg. 2, “The sealing air is under pressure compared to raw and clean air”). Noack does not teach wherein the sealing arrangement further comprises a control sensor and a leakage monitoring device comprising a leakage sensor.
However, Swales teaches a sealing arrangement (Abstract) between two elements (Fig. 3, wall frame 22 and sterilizer-side flange 42) that has an intermediate gasket space formed by two gasket members (Fig. 3, gaskets 52, 54 and gap/seal chamber 60), wherein the sealing arrangement further comprises a control sensor located between the pressure source and the surrounding environment (Abstract “The seal chamber may be pressurized with a fluid and then the pressure within the seal chamber monitored by a pressure sensor; See also Fig. 3, sensor probe 62), said control sensor being configured to communicate with an evaluation device in order to allow monitoring that the pressure source is operating properly (¶0034 “In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit (not shown) which will generate a warning signal indicative of seal failure.”), and a leakage monitoring device comprising a leakage sensor positioned in a conduit between the pressure source and the intermediate gasket space (Fig. 9, port 80; ¶0042 “port 80 within the seal gasket 54 which can be used, in this example, both for filling the space 60 with fluid and for holding a suitable sensor probe”).
Noack and Swales are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealing arrangements. The modification of Noack to incorporate the sensor as taught by Swales would allow for remote monitoring and would remove the need to physically examine the sealing arrangement to determine whether a leak has occurred. It therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Noack to include the sensor as taught by Swales.
Regarding claim 51, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Swales further teaches wherein the pressure source is arranged in fluid communication with the intermediate gasket space between the gasket members via the conduit (Fig. 9, port 80; ¶0042 “port 80 within the seal gasket 54 which can be used, in this example, both for filling the space 60 with fluid and for holding a suitable sensor probe”).
Regarding claim 52, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Swales further teaches wherein the conduit is connected to the intermediate gasket space (Fig. 9, port 80 is connected to space 60). Swales does not teach that the conduit is connected through the mounting structure; however, shifting the position of the claimed conduit would not modify the operation of the sealing device and does therefore not distinguish the instant application from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04 V C.
Regarding claim 53, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Swales further teaches wherein the conduit is connected to the intermediate gasket space (Fig. 9, port 80 is connected to space 60). Swales does not teach that the conduit is connected through the frame of the filter; however, shifting the position of the claimed conduit would not modify the operation of the sealing device and does therefore not distinguish the instant application from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04 V C.
Regarding claim 54, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Noack and Swales do not teach a backup pressure source arranged parallel to the pressure source. However, a backup pressure source would be obvious to incorporate in case of failure, maintaining the pressure in the intermediate gasket space if the initial source is not working. Duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the case of providing a backup pressure source, the result that is produced is neither new nor unexpected. See MPEP §2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claim 55, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Swales further teaches wherein the leakage sensor is an air flow sensor or a pressure sensor (¶0033 “Coupled to the double seal assembly 50, in this example through an opening or port in one of the gaskets 54, is a sensor probe 62, preferably a pressure sensor”).
Regarding claim 56, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Noack further teaches one or more confined volumes (Pg. 5, “Device for filtering air, comprising a filter housing with a raw air and a clean air area, the raw and clean air area separated by a partition against each other”), each confined volume being sealed by a respective sealing arrangement (Pg. 5, “wherein in the contact area between the head section and partition a seal with sealing ribs is executed”) wherein the intermediate gasket space of each of the respective sealing arrangements is connected to the same pressure source (Pg. 4, “The arrow indicated in FIG. 2 symbolizes the inflow of compressed air into the gap of the seal”).
Regarding claim 57, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 56 above. Swales further teaches an evaluation device (¶0034 “A warning unit could be coupled directly to the assembly or could be a remote monitoring unit, in which case a communication link, wired or wireless, may be provided.”); wherein the intermediate gasket space of each of the respective sealing arrangements is connected to the pressure source via respective conduits (Fig. 9, port 80; ¶0042 “port 80 within the seal gasket 54 which can be used, in this example, both for filling the space 60 with fluid and for holding a suitable sensor probe”), and the leakage sensors are each located on one of the respective conduits between the pressure source and the intermediate gasket spaces (¶0042 “port 80 within the seal gasket 54 which can be used … for holding a suitable sensor probe”), each leakage sensor being configured to continuously transmit leakage detection data to the evaluation device (¶0006 “wherein the filter material provides a measurable characteristic; and at least one sensor disposed to measure said measurable characteristic.”), and the evaluation device being configured to continuously receive said leakage detection data (¶0034 “where there is leakage through or around either of the gaskets 52, 54, pressure in the seal chamber 60 will drop, which will be detected by the pressure sensor 62. In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit.”).
Regarding claim 59, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 56 above. Noack further teaches wherein the one or more confined volumes is a containment enclosure (Pg. 5, “Device for filtering air, comprising a filter housing with a raw air and a clean air area, the raw and clean air area separated by a partition against each other), the containment enclosure comprising a housing and an air inlet opening into which a filter is fitted (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
820
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the filter is sealed to the housing by the sealing arrangement (Pg. 5, “wherein in the contact area between the head section and partition a seal with sealing ribs is executed”).
Regarding claim 60, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 56 above. Swales further teaches the use of a sealing arrangement for a cleanroom or a pharmaceutical production space provided with an air filtration arrangement (¶0002 “There are many instances, particularly in a hospital environment, in which it is necessary to seal an area or room for medical purposes. For instance, some rooms must be kept highly sterilized”), providing evidence that the use of sealing arrangements in such a manner is known in the art. Although Noack does not teach wherein the filter and the sealing arrangement are used within a cleanroom, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The sealing arrangement as taught by Noack and Swales would be capable of use within a cleanroom or a pharmaceutical production space. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 61, Noack and Swales teach the sealing arrangement as applied to claim 50 above. Noack further teaches wherein the second element of the sealing arrangement is the mounting structure (Fig. 2, partition 2) and comprised in a filter housing configured for mounting of an air filter (Fig. 1, partition 2 is a part of the filter housing), wherein the filter housing comprises a connection adapted to be coupled to the pressure source (Fig. 1, air supply 1), and being configured to connect the intermediate gasket space to the pressure source (Pg. 4, “This cavity by means of an air supply can be acted upon with compressed air” ; Pg. 4, “The arrow indicated in FIG. 2 symbolizes the inflow of compressed air into the gap of the seal”), said intermediate gasket space being formed between the two elongated gasket members of the gasket arranged between the mounting structure and the filter (Fig. 2, intermediate space 11), wherein the connection is a conduit provided within the filter housing (Fig. 2, a small hole in which the inflow of compressed air travels into the gap of the seal reads on a “conduit”). The modification of the sealing arrangement as taught by Noack to incorporate the sensor of Swales would be achieved through an insertion of the port and sensor as taught by Swales (Fig. 9, port 80; Fig. 3, sensor probe 62) into the intermediate space taught by Noack (Fig. 2, the small hole within partition 2 which creates a channel within intermediate space 11) through the same path that the compressed air flows into said intermediate space. With the modification of Noack to incorporate the port and sensor as taught by Swales in the location discussed above, the port as taught by Swales would be considered the “conduit” of the claimed invention and would be inserted through one of the two elongated gaskets members of the gasket arranged between the mounting structure and the filter as taught by Noack (following the path of the compressed air into the intermediate space).
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noack and Swales as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Sehulster, LM et al. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations from CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), (Chicago, IL, 2004), pp. 1-241. (hereinafter referred to as Sehulster).
Regarding claim 46, Noack and Swales teach a method as applied to claim 43 above. Noack further teaches a pressure source configured to maintain a set pressure difference towards a surrounding environment (Pg. 2, “The sealing air is under pressure compared to raw and clean air”). Noack and Swales are silent on the pressure difference being positive or negative. However, in order for there to be a set pressure difference, said difference must be either positive or negative. Through routine experimentation, it would have been obvious to try a configuration in which there was a positive pressure difference relative to the surrounding environment.
In an alternative, assuming that Noack and Swales do not sufficiently teach that the intermediate gasket space would have a positive pressure difference relative to the surrounding environment, Sehulster teaches that both positive and negative pressure clean rooms serve advantageous functions. For example, Sehulster teaches that when treating patients with comprised immune systems, housing the patient in a positive pressure environment can prevent the patient from coming into contact with airborne pathogens (Pg. 33 “PE rooms housing severely neutropenic patients are set at positive pressure to keep airborne pathogens in adjacent spaces or corridors from coming into and contaminating the airspace occupied by such high-risk patients.”). Conversely, in rooms housing patients with varying illnesses, a negative pressure environment will prevent airborne pathogens from spreading to other areas of the facility (Pg. 33 “All rooms are set at a negative pressure to prevent airborne microorganisms in the room from entering hallways and corridors.”). In said negative pressure environments, a positive pressure difference in the intermediate gasket space would secure the sealing arrangement.
Noack, Swales, and Sehulster are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealing configurations. It therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Noack and Swales to incorporate a positive pressure difference within the intermediate gasket space when, as taught by Sehulster, the environment in which the sealing arrangement is being used has potentially dangerous pathogens that could spread throughout the facility if a negative pressure environment is not established.
Regarding claim 47, Noack and Swales teach a method as applied to claim 43 above. Noack further teaches a pressure source configured to maintain a set pressure difference towards a surrounding environment (Pg. 2, “The sealing air is under pressure compared to raw and clean air”). Noack and Swales are silent on the pressure difference being positive or negative. However, in order for there to be a set pressure difference, said difference must be either positive or negative. Through routine experimentation, it would have been obvious to try a configuration in which there was a negative pressure difference relative to the surrounding environment.
In an alternative, assuming that Noack and Swales do not sufficiently teach that the intermediate gasket space would have a negative pressure difference relative to the surrounding environment, Sehulster teaches that both positive and negative pressure clean rooms serve advantageous functions. For example, Sehulster teaches that when treating patients with comprised immune systems, housing the patient in a positive pressure environment can prevent the patient from coming into contact with airborne pathogens (Pg. 33 “PE rooms housing severely neutropenic patients are set at positive pressure to keep airborne pathogens in adjacent spaces or corridors from coming into and contaminating the airspace occupied by such high-risk patients.”). Conversely, in rooms housing patients with varying illnesses, a negative pressure environment will prevent airborne pathogens from spreading to other areas of the facility (Pg. 33 “All rooms are set at a negative pressure to prevent airborne microorganisms in the room from entering hallways and corridors.”). In said positive pressure environments, a negative pressure difference in the intermediate gasket space would secure the sealing arrangement.
Noack, Swales, and Sehulster are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealing arrangements. It therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Noack and Swales to incorporate a negative pressure difference within the intermediate gasket space when, as taught by Sehulster, the environment in which the sealing arrangement is being used to house immunocompromised patients that may be exposed to airborne pathogens if a positive pressure environment is not established.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noack and Swales as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6290741 to Lopp et al. (hereinafter referred to as Lopp).
Regarding claim 48, Noack and Swales teach a method as applied to claim 43 above. Noack and Swales do not disclose the exact pressure difference between the intermediate gasket space and the surrounding environment. However, it would have been an obvious step to determine the pressure required to hold such a seal through routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.95 II A.
In an alternative, assuming that Noack and Swales do not sufficiently teach that the pressure difference between the intermediate gasket space and the surrounding environment falls within the range of 50 Pa – 1000 kPa, Lopp teaches an adjustable seal for use with a filter inside of a clean room (Abstract), wherein the seal is formed by applying 18 PSI of pressure (Col. 4, lines 18-19 “In one embodiment, approximately 18 PSI of pressure is sufficient to hold such a jig in place”). 18 PSI of pressure corresponds to approximately 124 kPa, which is within the claimed range.
Noack, Swales, and Lopp are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of providing sealing arrangements for filtration devices. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pressure as taught by Lopp would be sufficient to hold a sealing arrangement as taught in the method of Noack and Swales.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noack and Swales as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0017926 to Alkadi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Alkadi).
Regarding claim 58, Noack and Swales teach a sealing arrangement as applied to claim 56 above. Swales teaches that the sensor probe is attached to a control unit capable of alerting a user of a leak, but Swales is otherwise silent on the configuration of the control unit. Swales also teaches continuously applying pressure to the intermediate gasket space by the pressure source and obtaining a control value from the control sensor (¶0033 “as shown, the seal chamber 60 between the gaskets 52, 54 can be pressurized with a suitable fluid” ; ¶0006 “wherein the filler material provides a measurable characteristic; and at least one sensor disposed to measure said measurable characteristic.”); and, if the control value from the control sensor deviates from a control setpoint value, establishing that the pressure source is not operating (¶0034 “In practice, the sensor probe 62 will be coupled to a suitable control or warning unit.”); but Swales fails to explicitly disclose that said actions are executed by a processor. However, in order for this communication to occur, the device must comprise a control unit, memory unit, and processor, as well as a communication connection with the user.
In an alternative, assuming that Noack and Swales do not sufficiently teach the control unit, memory unit, processor, and communication means, Alkadi teaches an evaluation device for gas monitoring and detecting (Abstract “Systems, methods, and a computer readable medium are provided for monitoring and detecting a gas emission.”). Alkadi further teaches the use of sensors to detect potential gas leaks (Abstract “Sensor data … is received from Near-Field and Far-Field sensors configured within a gas production and distribution environment.”), wherein the evaluation device/system comprises a control unit (Fig. 1A, control module 155) comprising a memory unit (Fig. 2A, memory 235) and a processor (Fig. 2A, processor 230) and a communication means arranged to be able to communicate with an external recipient (Fig. 2A, Comm I/O 240), wherein the memory unit is arranged to be able to store computer readable code (¶0085 “Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory … The essential elements of a computer are a processor for executing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data.”) that when executed on the processor causes performance of at least the following: continuously applying pressure to the intermediate gasket space by the pressure source and obtaining a control value from the control sensor (¶0003 “In one embodiment, the method can include receiving near-field sensor data and far-field sensor data from one or more sensors”); and, if the control value from the control sensor deviates from a control setpoint value, establishing that the pressure source is not operating (¶0021 “The emission analyzer 135 and the modules configured therein can receive the sensor data from one or more clients 125 and can generate emission data used in determining a gas emission or leak from one or more gas sources 115.”).
Noack, Swales, and Alkadi are all considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of monitoring systems for leaks or other failures. As demonstrated by Alkadi, the control unit, memory unit, processor, and communication connection with the user are inherent characteristics of such monitoring and control systems. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Alkadi to execute the system functions as taught by Noack and Swales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 62 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to dependent claim 62, Noack and Swales are the nearest prior art. Noack, Swales, nor the related prior art teach wherein the gasket is configured to seal the gap between the filter frame and the filter mounting structure in the filter housing, wherein the gasket is arranged to surround the opening in which an air filter media pack assembly is positionable, wherein an inner elongated gasket member is configured to surround the opening where the air filter media pack assembly is positioned, and an outer elongated gasket member is configured to surround the inner elongated gasket member and the opening. Furthermore, Noack, Swales, nor the related prior art provide a rationale for modifying any of the previously discussed teachings to meet all of the requirements as set forth by claim 62.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776