DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Applicant acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed 6/26/26 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Claim 21 has been added to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph rejection. The previous 112 2nd paragraph rejection is withdrawn.
The Arguments have been considered, however, does not put the case in condition for allowance.
The prior art rejection remains for the independent claim 1 but withdrawn for claims 2 and 3.
This rejection is made FINAL.
FINAL REJECTION
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, 20, and 21 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).
Regarding claim 21, Wessels teaches a filter element 240 in the dirty air chamber 226.
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 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 3 are 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. (See below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Wessels does not calculate airflow from pressure alone. Wessels calculates real-time air flow according to the equation (column 8 line 5):
F
R
p
=
P
s
P
i
×
Q
i
This uses the current pressure data together with the stored baseline airflow Qi. Claim 1 is directed to a monitoring system and does not require any particular method or procedure or obtaining the previously measured airflow as currently written. Wessels disclose a controller and memory configure to store a baseline airflow value and use that value with pressure data in the claimed airflow calculation. Wessel’s system is capable of storing and using a measured airflow value in the same disclosed manner. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
However, in light of the Applicant’s remarks are persuasive for claims 2 and 3 since these claims require multiplication by the square of the recited quotient whereas Wessels teaches the use of the square root. Accordingly, claims 2 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of its parent claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights