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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (maintained)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5 and 19 to now recite a “5x2x2 cube port”. The specification provides only that “the ports 232 may be 5x2x2 cube ports, or any port type known in the art.” ([0031]). The specification does not describe what the “5x2x2” values actually represent; in other words, there are no provided “units” or measurement or reference to what the #s even represent; therefore, there is no adequate definition describing the structural meaning of the term “cube port”, and there is no adequate tie to any dimension or reference described in the embodiments or the drawings. Applicant’s amendment relies on “5x2x2 cube port” as a structural limitation, but the specification does not reasonably convey possession of that limitation as claimed. Therefore, the 112(a) is hereby maintained.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 5 and 19 to recite “a 5x2x2 cube port”. The limitation “5x2x2” is dimensionless in the claim and is not tied to any objective measurement convention. The claims do not specify any units of measurement or identify any means by which the #s can be referenced. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of what a “5x2x2 cube port” are, with any reasonable certainty.
Further, the term “cube” appears inconsistent with an array of “5x2x2” as a cube typically is represented by identical values (5x5x5 or 2x2x2), and this only leads to uncertainty regarding the claimed structure. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (maintained)
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande, WO 2020/167453 A1.
As per claim 1, (AS AMENDED), Pande discloses an AC filter sensor system comprising:
a device comprised of a body (e.g., See Fig 2, “filter status module 170 comprises a housing 171 defining an internal volume…” also [0044]), a sensor (e.g., See [0034]; “The first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112”); a transducer (e.g., See [0034]; “The first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112”), a port (e.g., See [0043]; “a T-connector 40 comprises a first port 42 … a second port 44… a sensing port 46…”), a battery (e.g., See [0047], which discloses “The energy storage device 175 (e.g., battery such as Li-ion battery) is disposed within the internal volume defined by the housing 171…”), and a mobile application (e.g. See [0060], which discloses “… the user device 50 may include a mobile device … within a filter status monitoring application executable on the user device 50.”)
However, Pande does not specifically disclose a “cube” port, per se. However, manifold/cube ports are conventional in HVAC differential pressure sensing systems because they provide compact plural port connections, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated a cube port configuration for the ports disclosed by Pande in order to provide a compact arrangement for multiple pressure connections, yielding to predicable results (See MPEP 2144.04; Design Choice).
Further, with regards to the “5x2x2” aspect of the “cube port”, as set forth above with respect to the 112(b) rejection, the amendment does not provide objective boundaries or references for what it represented by “5x2x2”, and therefore, the claims are not meaningfully narrowed by the inclusion of this limitation to the previously claimed “cube port”. Accordingly, the 103 rejection is maintained because the applied reference adequately teaches a port/connector structure as claimed, and as previously discussed.
As per claim 2, Pande further discloses that the sensor is in wired communication with the transducer (e.g., See [0034], that discloses that the sensor 110 includes transducer 112; the internal connection is inherently wired).
As per claim 5, (AS AMENDED), Pande discloses an AC filter sensor system comprising:
a device comprised of a body (e.g., See Fig 2, “filter status module 170 comprises a housing 171 defining an internal volume…” also [0044]), a sensor (e.g., See [0034]; “The first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112”); a transducer (e.g., See [0034]; “The first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112”), a port (e.g., See [0043]; “a T-connector 40 comprises a first port 42 … a second port 44… a sensing port 46…”), a hose (e.g., See [0043], which discloses “the T-connector 40 also comprises a second port 44 configured to be removably coupled to a fluid delivery hose 92… another T-connector … coupled to a fluid return hose 94…”), a battery (e.g., See [0047], which discloses “The energy storage device 175 (e.g., battery such as Li-ion battery) is disposed within the internal volume defined by the housing 171…”), and a mobile application (e.g. See [0060], which discloses “… the user device 50 may include a mobile device … within a filter status monitoring application executable on the user device 50.”) having a notification feature (e.g. See [0061], which discloses “in response to the differential pressure being greater than a first pressure threshold … indicate to the user that the filter element is plugged.”).
However, Pande does not specifically disclose a “cube” port, per se. However, manifold/cube ports are conventional in HVAC differential pressure sensing systems because they provide compact plural port connections, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated a cube port configuration for the ports disclosed by Pande in order to provide a compact arrangement for multiple pressure connections, yielding to predicable results (See MPEP 2144.04; Design Choice).
Further, with regards to the “5x2x2” aspect of the “cube port”, as set forth above with respect to the 112(b) rejection, the amendment does not provide objective boundaries or references for what it represented by “5x2x2”, and therefore, the claims are not meaningfully narrowed by the inclusion of this limitation to the previously claimed “cube port”. Accordingly, the 103 rejection is maintained because the applied reference adequately teaches a port/connector structure as claimed, and as previously discussed.
As per claim 6, Pande’s combined system further discloses that the device further comprises a fastener (e.g., See [0042], which discloses “first pressure sensor 110 and second pressure sensor 120 may be remotely coupled… via mating threads, pins, snap-fit, friction fit”).
As per claim 8, Pande’s combined system further discloses that the sensor is in wireless communication with the transducer (e.g., See [0039], which discloses “the sensing assembly 100 may include a wireless differential pressure sensor .. configured to generate a wireless differential pressure signal”).
As per claim 9, Pande’s combined system adequately discloses that the sensor is a pressure sensor (e.g., See [0034], which discloses “the first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112…”).
As per claim 10, Pande adequately discloses that the transducer is a pressure differential measuring transducer (e.g., See [0056], which mostly shows individual pressure transducers + change in pressure circuitry, and Pande also discloses an alternative “wireless differential pressure sensor” in [0039]; in the opinion of the examiner, these teachings are sufficient to anticipate the features of this pending claim).
As per claim 12. Pande’s combined system adequately discloses that the notification feature sends a notification to a user when a threshold value is exceeded (e.g. See [0061], which discloses “in response to the differential pressure being greater than a first pressure threshold … indicate to the user that the filter element is plugged”).
As per claim 13, Pande’s combined system adequately discloses that the hose is attached to the port (e.g. See [0043], which discloses “T-connector 40 … second port 44… coupled to a fluid delivery hose 92 …”).
As per claim 14, Pande’s combined system adequately discloses that the mobile application is comprised of a tracking feature (e.g. See [0060], which discloses “… within a filter status monitoring application executable on the user device 50”; also see [0032], which discloses “allowing monitoring of filter status …”).
As per claim 15, Pande’s combined system adequately discloses that the threshold value is determined by the pressure differential measuring transducer (e.g. See [0056], which discloses “differential pressure determination circuitry 174b… configured to determine … differential pressure …”).
As per claim 17, Pande’s combined system adequately discloses that the battery is a disposable battery (e.g., See [0036], which discloses “may be removably disposed… to be removed and replaced with a new energy storage device”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande, as applied to claim 1, from above, and further in view of Alderman et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0015768 A1.
As per claim 4, Pande does not specifically disclose a battery door cover.
In analogous art, Alderman et al. discloses this feature (e.g. See [Fig. 2 and [0028], which discloses “… a housing 18 that includes a battery housing 24, batteries 26 and a battery cover plate 28.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated a battery cover into Pande for the purpose of allowing for easy replacement of discharged batteries without needing to replace the entire housing, thereby improving usability and reducing the overall cost of maintaining the filter monitoring system.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande, as applied to claim 6, from above, and further in view of Seaton, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0012479 A1.
As per claim 7, Pande does not specifically disclose the fastener being comprised of a magnet.
In analogous art, Seaton discloses, in [0019], that “… a physical connection may be a magnetic, adhesive, or any other means for physical attachment to the HVAC duct component.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the magnetic feature into Pande for the purpose and/or benefit of providing a non-invasive, easily removable fastening option that allows the monitoring device to be quickly installed or repositioned without tools, thereby increasing installation flexibility and reducing maintenance time.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande, as applied to claim 8, from above, and further in view of Chaudhuri, US Patent No. 10,864,471.
As per claim 11, Pande does not specifically disclose the transducer being in wireless electrical communication with the mobile application.
In analogous art, Chaudhuri discloses this feature (e.g., See C4 L48 - C5 L5, which discloses “… system 200 comprises a housing 201 … an energy sensor device 225 … an antenna 260…”; also see Fig.6 and C15 L15-22, which discloses “…whereby the filter app 620, on a user device which is a mobile phone, can be utilized to receive data to indicate when a filter should be replaced.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the features of Chaudhuri into Pande for the purpose of simplifying the overall system architecture by eliminating the intermediate module, and thereby reducing overall hardware cost and latency.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande, WO 2020/167453 A1, in view of TW I808061 B (Hereinafter: TW) (English translation).
As per claim 19, (AS AMENDED), Pande discloses a method of using an AC filter sensor system, the method comprising the steps of:
placing a device of an AC filter sensor system in an AC unit (e.g. See Pande; Fig. 2 and [0032] and [0047], which discloses “System for determining filter status … module 170 installed in the air handling unit with sensor 110 and a battery 175”);
receiving a notification from a mobile application of the AC filter sensor system (e.g. See Pande; [0060], which discloses “User device 50 may include a mobile device … within a filter status monitoring application executable on the user device”);
wherein the device comprises a body (e.g., See Fig 2, “filter status module 170 comprises a housing 171 defining an internal volume…” also [0044]), a sensor (e.g., See [0034]; “The first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112”); a transducer (e.g., See [0034]; “The first pressure sensor 110 includes a first pressure transducer 112”), a port (e.g., See [0043]; “a T-connector 40 comprises a first port 42 … a second port 44… a sensing port 46…”), a hose (e.g., See [0043], which discloses “the T-connector 40 also comprises a second port 44 configured to be removably coupled to a fluid delivery hose 92… another T-connector … coupled to a fluid return hose 94…”), a battery (e.g., See [0047], which discloses “The energy storage device 175 (e.g., battery such as Li-ion battery) is disposed within the internal volume defined by the housing 171…”).
However, Pande does not specifically disclose the step of receiving a new AC filter from a supplier that received the notification.
In analogous art, TW discloses “The app enables ordering of replacement filters, automatically or in response to user-selectable options provided by the app on the mobile device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the features of TW into Pande in order to enable automatic fulfillment of replacement filer needs once a clogged condition is detected, thereby enhancing user convenience and ensuring timely filter replacement.
Once again, it is further noted that Pande does not specifically disclose a “cube” port, per se. However, manifold/cube ports are conventional in HVAC differential pressure sensing systems because they provide compact plural port connections, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated a cube port configuration for the ports disclosed by Pande in order to provide a compact arrangement for multiple pressure connections, yielding to predicable results (See MPEP 2144.04; Design Choice).
Further, as previously discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 5, with regards to the “5x2x2” aspect of the “cube port”, as set forth above with respect to the 112(b) rejection, the amendment does not provide objective boundaries or references for what it represented by “5x2x2”, and therefore, the claims are not meaningfully narrowed by the inclusion of this limitation to the previously claimed “cube port”. Accordingly, the 103 rejection is maintained because the applied reference adequately teaches a port/connector structure as claimed, and as previously discussed.
As per claim 20, Pande discloses, in [0060], that “user device … within a filter status monitoring application… to present an indication of when the filter should be replaced”; also see TW which discloses “The app enables ordering or replacement filters, automatically or in response to user-selectable options provided by the app on the mobile device.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that reciting “5x2x2” clarifies the previously claimed “cube port” and therefore overcomes the 112 issues and further renders the claims allowable over the prior art of record. The arguments are not persuasive for at least the reasons already outlined above. The applicant has not provided objective boundaries for the “5x2x2 cube port” (units or measurement references) and has not identified any part of the specification that defines the claimed dimensions with sufficient clarity. Accordingly, the applicant has not shown that the amendment cures the deficiencies outlined in the 112 rejections.
With respect to the applicant’s confusion that the examiner’s positions is not viewed to be consistent, the argument is not persuasive because 112 addresses indefiniteness and written description, whereas 103 addresses obviousness, these being separate statutory inquiries.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 January 25, 2026
/RDH/