DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 12/18/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the search would not have been burdensome. This is not found persuasive because the method claims and system claims require different areas of search and consideration. In the system claims, the components are given considerable weight whereas a method claim group must consider specific steps and processes that require outside search from the system claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2 and 3 recite “a real time” when it should read “the real time.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “A monitoring system for industrial dust collectors” is indefinite because there is no limitation within the claim or its dependent claims directed to collecting dust. Therefore, it is not clear how the monitoring system would function for dust collecting.
Claims 2-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wessels et al. US Patent 11,925,890.
Regarding claim 1, Wessels teaches a monitoring system for a filter system comprising (See Figures 1 and 5):
a) A pressure sensor 150;
b) A control conduit 140 that is in signal connection to the pressure sensor 150 (column 4 lines 60-62); wherein
c) The monitoring system records pressure values including a first pressure in communication with the dirty chamber, a second pressure in communication with the clean air chamber, and a third pressure in communication with the gas supply (column 6 lines 30-48); and wherein
d) The monitoring system calculates a value correlated to a fluid flow rate, which is analogous to the air velocity value, through the filtration system based on a static pressure value and a pressure value measured from the pressure sensor 150 (column 7 lines 25-50).
Regarding claims 4-7, and 9 Wessel teaches that the pressure sensor records static pressure signals, wherein the pressure sensor is in communication with the main duct via conduit 156, thus indicates that there is a static pressure sensor that measures a pressure change in response to dust congestion in the main duct, branches, or upstream the air filter (column 7 line 45-56).
Regarding claim 10, there includes a plurality of pressure sensors (first, second, and third pressure sensors) that are configured to measure pressure in ducts at the clean air, dirty air, or supply, thus measuring pressure in ducts associated with different air collectors (column 6 lines 30-48).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the monitoring system includes an output device for alerting the user of a current status, indication of problem, maintenance, or required intervention, thus includes notifications of erroneous values (column 8 lines 55-60). These values are associated with air volume pressure change, therefore are configured to issue an alert when air velocity values are outside of a target range.
Regarding claims 12 , 14, 16, and 17, the monitoring system includes an input that can receive manual instructions or data from a user, and figured to communicate with a remote computing source where the date includes pressure values (column 7 lines 23-38). These values are associated with air volume pressure change, therefore are configured to issue an alert when air velocity values are outside of a target range.
Regarding claim 19, the pressure sensor 150 and the control circuit 140 are both located on the industrial collector (Figure 1).
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessels et al. US Patent 11,925,890.
Regarding claim 2, Wessels teaches the monitoring system calculating real time values for air flow but does not explicitly teach multiplying the previously measured air volume value and/or air velocity value by the square of the quotient of a current relative airflow value divided by a relative airflow value measured at the time of the previously measured air volume and/or air velocity.
However, Wessels does teach the monitoring system can be used perform various operations based on data from sensors including, averaging, time-averaging, statistical analysis, normalizing, aggregating, sorting, deleting, traversing, transforming, condensing, compressing, merging, inserting, time-stamping, filtering, discarding outliers, calculating trends and trendlines (linear, logarithmic, polynomial, power, exponential, moving average, etc.) (column 6 lines 55-68).
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the monitoring system in Wessels can be configured to multiply the previously measured air volume value and/or air velocity value by the square of the quotient of a current relative airflow value divided by a relative airflow value measured at the time of the previously measured air volume and/or air velocity.
Regarding claim 3, Wessel teaches calculating a real time value for air volume and/or air velocity but does not explicitly teach the calculation is conducted by multiplying the previously measured air volume value and/or air velocity value by the square of the quotient of a current pressure value divided by a pressure value measured at the time of the previously measured air volume and/or air velocity.
However, Wessels does teach the monitoring system can be used perform various operations based on data from sensors including, averaging, time-averaging, statistical analysis, normalizing, aggregating, sorting, deleting, traversing, transforming, condensing, compressing, merging, inserting, time-stamping, filtering, discarding outliers, calculating trends and trendlines (linear, logarithmic, polynomial, power, exponential, moving average, etc.) (column 6 lines 55-68).
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the monitoring system in Wessels can be configured to multiply the previously measured air volume value and/or air velocity value by the square of the quotient of a current pressure value divided by a pressure value measured at the time of the previously measured air volume and/or air velocity.
Regarding claim 8, Wessel teaches that the pressure sensor records static pressure signals that is configured to measure pressure values within the dust collector (column 7 line 46). Wessel does not explicitly teach the diameter is 4 to 48 inches, however it would have been obvious to use common values known in dust collection apparatuses.
Regarding claim 18, Wessel does not explicitly teach the air volumes are in the range of 500 cfm to 50,000 cfm. However, the applications for this filter apparatus include industrial filtering, thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus in Wessels would be configured to include high air volumes that are common in industrial settings.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wessels et al. US Patent 11,925,890 in view of Ginn et al. US Patent 4,796,651.
Regarding claim 15, Wessel does not explicitly teach a pitot tube or vane and hot wire anemometer. However, these are known systems in the art for measuring air flow as done in Ginn who uses a hot wire anemometer type sensor in Figure 12 (column 10 line 34). Thus, it would have been obvious to use known components and sensor types to record accurate measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772