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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase of “for a heavy duty dust extractor” is understood as being directed to and further reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which does not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claimed invention, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02 and § 2112 - § 2112.02.
In this view, the “dust extractor” is neither required nor positively cited in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a filter holder, an essential filter, a filter inlet a filter outlet a first air pressure sensor and a second air pressure sensor wherein the first air pressure sensor is arranged to indicate an inlet air pressure associated with the filter inlet and the second air pressure sensor is arranged to indicate an outlet air pressure associated with the filter outlet” in lines 1-5.
It should be “a filter holder, an essential filter, a filter inlet, a filter outlet, a first air pressure sensor, and a second air pressure sensor; wherein the first air pressure sensor is arranged to indicate an inlet air pressure associated with the filter inlet and the second air pressure sensor is arranged to indicate an outlet air pressure associated with the filter outlet”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grider et al (US 20140260994; hereinafter Grider) in view of Freen (US 20110185895).
As regarding claim 1, Grider discloses the claimed invention for a filter arrangement ([0004], [0152], [0161]-[0163], [0245], [0307]-[0308] and fig. 29) for a heavy duty dust extractor ([0004]), the filter arrangement comprising a filter holder, an essential filter, a filter inlet, a filter outlet, a first air pressure sensor and a second air pressure sensor, wherein the first air pressure sensor is arranged to indicate an inlet air pressure associated with the filter inlet and the second air pressure sensor is arranged to indicate an outlet air pressure associated with the filter outlet, the filter arrangement further comprising a control unit arranged to detect a state of the essential filter based on a pressure difference between the inlet air pressure and the outlet air pressure ([0152]), wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a missing essential filter if the pressure difference is smaller than a configurable missing filter threshold and/or wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a malfunctioning essential filter if the pressure difference is below a configurable filter malfunction threshold ([0161]-[0163] and fig. 29).
Also regarding claim 1, Grider does not disclose wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the pressure difference between the inlet air pressure and the outlet air pressure after a settling time duration of filter operation, wherein the settling time duration is measured from the initial powering on of the dust extractor, and wherein the settling time duration is measured once per powering on of the dust extractor. Freen teaches wherein the settling time duration is measured from the initial powering on of the dust extractor (abstract, [0007], [0038], [0043], [0048], [0056], [0061]-[0062] and claim 12). Both Grider and Freen are directed to air filter management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the pressure difference between the inlet air pressure and the outlet air pressure after a settling time duration of filter operation as taught by Freen in order to enhance filter arrangement performance.
Alternatively, since Claim 1 does not require the settling time duration to be automatically measured or controlled by the filter arrangement, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to have an operator perform this function - i.e., to measure the settling time from the initial powering on of the dust extractor, and to do so once per startup. Such a manual approach would be motivated by the need to avoid inaccurate pressure readings during transient startup conditions, ensure the filter reaches a stable operating state before evaluation, and reduce system complexity by minimizing control requirements and computational load.
As regarding claim 2, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the pressure difference between the inlet air pressure and the outlet air pressure by averaging ([0253]) or low-pass filtering measurement values from the first and second air pressure sensors.
As regarding claim 4, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a malfunctioning essential filter if the pressure difference is between the missing filter threshold and a configurable filter malfunction threshold ([0335]-[0338]).
As regarding claim 5, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a particle-laden essential filter if the pressure difference is above a configurable particle-laden filter threshold ([0315]).
As regarding claim 6, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the first air pressure sensor and the second air pressure sensor are arranged to measure respective absolute air pressure values ([0248]).
As regarding claim 10, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein at least one of the first and the second air pressure sensor is arranged to be wirelessly connected to the control unit ([0232]).
As regarding claim 11, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for a pre-filter with a pre-filter inlet and a pre-filter outlet arranged upstream from the essential filter ([0248]).
However, Grider does not disclose wherein a third pressure sensor and a fourth pressure sensor are arranged to measure a pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure and the pre-filter outlet air pressure, wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a state of the pre-filter based on the pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure and the pre-filter outlet air pressure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein a third pressure sensor and a fourth pressure sensor are arranged to measure a pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure and the pre-filter outlet air pressure, wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a state of the pre-filter based on the pressure difference between the pre-filter inlet air pressure and the pre-filter outlet air pressure in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As regarding claim 12, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit arranged to detect a state of the essential filter based on the detected state of the pre-filter ([0220] and [0315]).
As regarding claim 13, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the missing filter threshold and/or the filter malfunction threshold is configured in dependence of an air flow through the essential filter ([0228]).
As regarding claim 17, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit is arranged to inactivate missing filter detection and/or malfunctioning filter detection in case the air flow through the essential filter is below a configurable minimum limit value ([0227]-[0228], [0234]-[0237], [0282], [0315], [0319]-[0320] and [0330]).
As regarding claim 19, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the control unit is arranged to communicate a filter state to a display device ([0234]-[0235], [0318] and [0336]).
As regarding claim 20, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the communicated filter state comprises any of. a pressure difference, a particle load level, a filter malfunction condition, a missing filter condition, and/or a particle accumulation rate ([0315]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grider et al (US 20140260994; hereinafter Grider) in view of Freen (US 20110185895) as applied to claim 1 and further in view Westergren (US 4733430).
As regarding claim 7, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first air pressure sensor and the second air pressure sensor are comprised in a differential air pressure sensor arrangement configured to measure relative air pressure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first air pressure sensor and the second air pressure sensor are comprised in a differential air pressure sensor arrangement configured to measure relative air pressure in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Westergren (col 7 ln 17-43). Both Grider and Westergren are directed to air filter management.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grider et al (US 20140260994; hereinafter Grider) in view of Freen (US 20110185895) as applied to claim 1 and further in view Cornell (US 20150059583).
As regarding claim 8, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first air pressure sensor is arranged in a conduit arranged to guide an air flow towards the filter inlet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first air pressure sensor is arranged in a conduit arranged to guide an air flow towards the filter inlet in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Cornell (pressure sensor 12 locates in the filter inlet conduit 4 of fig. 1). Both Grider and Westergren are directed to air filter device.
As regarding claim 9, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the second air pressure sensor is arranged in the filter housing. wherein the second air pressure sensor is arranged in the filter housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the second air pressure sensor is arranged in the filter housing in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Cornell (13, 14 of fig. 1 in housing 1). Both Grider and Cornell are directed to air filter device.
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grider et al (US 20140260994; hereinafter Grider) in view of Freen (US 20110185895) as applied to claim 13 and further in view Dudar (US 20170096974).
As regarding claim 14, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for where the missing filter threshold and/or the filter malfunction threshold is a linearly increasing or affine function of air flow through the essential filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide where the missing filter threshold and/or the filter malfunction threshold is a linearly increasing or affine function of air flow through the essential filter in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Dudar (fig. 8). Both Grider and Dudar are directed to air filter management.
As regarding claim 15, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for where the missing filter threshold and/or the filter malfunction threshold is a non-linear and non-decreasing function of air flow through the essential filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide where the missing filter threshold and/or the filter malfunction threshold is a non-linear and non-decreasing function of air flow through the essential filter in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Dudar (fig. 8). Both Grider and Dudar are directed to air filter management.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grider et al (US 20140260994; hereinafter Grider) in view of Freen (US 20110185895) and further in view Cunningham et al (US 20160084137; hereinafter Cunningham).
As regarding claim 16, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the particle-laden filter threshold is configured in dependence of an air flow through the essential filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the particle-laden filter threshold is configured in dependence of an air flow through the essential filter in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Cunningham ([0053]). Both Grider and Cunningham are directed to air filter apparatus.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grider et al (US 20140260994; hereinafter Grider) in view of Freen (US 20110185895) and further in view Phaal (US 20150281085).
As regarding claim 18, Grider as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. Grider as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a nearly particle-laden essential filter if the pressure difference is above a configurable nearly particle-laden filter threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the control unit is arranged to detect a nearly particle-laden essential filter if the pressure difference is above a configurable nearly particle-laden filter threshold in order to enhance filter arrangement performance, since it was known in the art as shown Phaal ([0028]). Both Grider and Phaal are directed to air filter apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773