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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 31 January 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-18 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/31/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the internal threads of the filter engaging with the internal threads on the filter housing”. This does not appear to be possible, and there does not appear to be sufficient disclosure in the drawings or specification for this feature. Instead, it appears that this should read “internal threads of the filter housing engaging with the external threads of the probe arm” or some variation.
While this claim will not be rejected under art due to the uncertainty of having two internal threads that engage with each other, it is noted that Jahn, cited in the references cited below, shows a collar with internal threads engaging with external threads of the probe arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrhorn (Publication No.: EP 2261572 A1, herein known as D1, submitted and cited in the IDS on 1/31/2024) in view of Pinto et al. (Publication No.: US 2009/0211357 A1, herein known as D2).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses an apparatus for measuring humidity of air flowing in a conduit, comprising:
a humidity sensor element (sensor 3; abstract); and
a filter to enclose the humidity sensor element, the filter comprising a filter housing that defines an interior in which the humidity sensor element is disposed, and an opening that provides fluid communication between the interior and exterior of the filter housing; wherein the filter further comprises a filter membrane that spans the opening, the filter membrane being constructed of a hydrophobic material that allows air and water vapor to pass freely through its structure from the exterior to the interior, and that blocks liquid water and particulates from passing through its structure from the exterior to the interior (casing 12, the filter/filter housing, with a porous and hydrophobic PTFE membrane 8, the filter membrane, that spans an opening of the casing; Fig. 3, “To protect the PCB 11 and the electronic circuit, the casing 12 may be filled with a filling material 10, e.g. polyurethane, silicone or similar filling material. A porous and hydrophobic PTFE membrane 8 is protecting the humidity sensor element in order to prevent liquid water from getting into the dead space 9. Water vapor can pass through the PTFE membrane 8 to the humidity sensor element 3. The dead space 9 is simply a small volume between the PTFE membrane and the sensor element 3.”).
D1 does not disclose an apparatus comprising a probe comprising a probe arm configured to be inserted into the conduit (the humidity sensor does not appear to be installed on a probe arm inside the casing).
D1 further teaches being a humidity sensor for a storage room (abstract).
D2 teaches a humidity sensor (humidity sensor 44) disposed in a probe arm placed inserted into a conduit (interior 15) as seen in Fig. 1 and discussed in [0016]. Furthermore, a filter element (62; [0017]) is disposed over the sensor to protect it from “airborne or user handling contaminants”, similarly to that of the sensor apparatus of D1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of D1 by arranging the sensor into a probe into the storage room as taught by D2 as a way to integrate the humidity sensor into a multiple condition sensor system as in D2 (D2 abstract). Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a filter membrane as taught by D1 for the filter membrane of D2 in order to additionally prevent water from entering into the sensor system (D2 only explicitly states that the filter protects against airborne or user handling contaminants, which does not explicitly describe liquid water).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the filter membrane is constructed of a porous, sintered PTFE membrane material (D1: “A porous and hydrophobic PTFE membrane 8 is protecting the humidity sensor element in order to prevent liquid water from getting into the dead space 9.”).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the filter housing is cylindrical, the opening is circular, and the filter membrane has a flat, disc- shaped configuration (appears to be the case in either combination, both the housing portion of D1 as seen in Fig. 3 and the probe section of D2 are both cylindrical in shape, the opening in D1 is clearly circular with a flat disk-shaped filter membrane 8 as seen in Fig. 3 of D1).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of D1 and D2 appears to further disclose an apparatus wherein the filter housing comprises a distal portion in which the filter membrane is disposed, the distal portion of the filter housing comprising an annular shoulder portion against which the filter membrane is positioned (from the D1 Fig. 3 drawing it appears that there is a portion for the membrane to be affixed to).
If this is not the case, D2’s probe housing includes an end (52 including portions 54) that work together to secure the filter 62 (Fig. 1), and in the combination in which the probe design is utilized it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the filter securing/protecting means additionally added.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of D1 and D2 does not disclose an apparatus wherein the filter further comprises an O-ring that engages the filter membrane and urges the membrane against the shoulder portion of the filter housing (there are no O-rings in the original design of D1).
D2 further teaches utilizing an O-ring (64) for securing the filter to the humidity sensor and pressing the filter against the probe housing walls (see D2 Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify the combination of D1 and D2 by utilizing an O-ring as a securing means as taught by D2 that will also give the apparatus the ability to easily remove or replace the filter ([0017]).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the filter housing comprises an annular recess for receiving the O-ring and positioning the O- ring adjacent the filter membrane, the filter housing being configured so that installation of the O-ring required the O-ring to be deflected and so that, once installed, resilient material qualities of the O-ring causes the O-ring to engage the annular edge portion of the filter membrane and urge the filter membrane against the shoulder portion of the filter housing (see combination above and D2 Fig. 3A).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, while the combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly disclose an apparatus wherein the O-ring is constructed of a hydrophobic material so as to form a hydrophobic seal that extends from the filter housing, across the O-ring and the interface between the O-ring and the filter membrane, and across the filter membrane itself (claim 7) or wherein the O-ring and filter membrane are constructed of a PTFE material (claim 8), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to choose an O-ring with these properties in view of the filter requirements of D1 (the combination as is does not disclose what material the O-ring is made of).
D1 requires the filter membrane to be made of a PTFE hydrophobic material to prevent unwanted liquid water from penetrating into the humidity sensor conduit, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the addition of an O-ring seal surrounding the filter that a similar material would be desired to keep out the liquid water from seeping in through/around the o-ring/housing or o-ring/filter interfaces.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the shoulder portion of the filter housing comprises an annular end surface against which an annular edge portion of the filter membrane is positioned, an inner surface of the filter housing intersecting the end surface at an acute angle to form an annular corner of the shoulder portion, wherein the filter membrane, in an assembled condition of the filter, is urged into engagement with the annular corner and deflected to bend at the annular corner so that the annular edge portion of the filter membrane engages the end surface of the shoulder portion (see the combination of D4, D1 Fig. 3 and D2 Figs. 1 and 3A).
With respect to claim 10, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the engagement between the filter membrane and the annular corner and the deformation of the filter membrane around the annular corner locks the membrane in place on the shoulder portion and enhances the sealing of the membrane against the annular end surface (this appears to be the design and intention of both D1 and D2 that the filter and sealing mechanisms of the filters and their attachments to the housing results in tight seals that prevent contaminants from entering and damaging the core electronics).
With respect to claim 12, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the distal portion of the filter comprises a collar portion for receiving the filter membrane, the collar portion comprising the shoulder portion (see D2, the portions with the openings 54 can be considered the collar, or the walls surrounding the probe further up where the sealing device 56 is arranged can also be considered the collar that allows the full probe to be inserted into the combination; D2 Fig. 1).
It should also be noted that if this is not considered a collar, Jahn, cited below in the pertinent prior art, discloses surrounding the probe at the end with a collar using threads, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this collar over the end portion of the probe of D2 with openings 54.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the filter housing is configured to position the filter membrane in a recess at the distal end of the filter housing (in the combination both in D1 and D2 the filter membrane is formed at the recess at the end of the housings).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses an apparatus wherein the filter is configured to orient the filter membrane in the recess with its planar surface parallel to the airstream when installed in the conduit (in the combination both in D1 and D2 the filter membrane is formed parallel to the airstream, either the top surface of D1 or the side surfaces with openings 54 in D2).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of D1 and D2 further appears to disclose an apparatus wherein the recess is configured so that the airflow in the conduit creates a vacuum at an outer surface of the filter membrane (as structured in the combination it appears that the designs of the recesses and filters that this would be the case).
With respect to claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
With respect to claim 18, while the combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly disclose an apparatus wherein the filter is constructed to have IP ratings of IP64, IP65, and IP68, these are known internationally recognized standards that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to meet. For instance, it appears that the combination of D1 and D2 would have at a minimum a rating of IP64 due to the contaminant blocking nature as described in D2, and the waterproofing nature of D1. IP65 and IP68 would appear to be stronger versions of water protection, and due to the hydrophobic material design of D1 one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to choose the correct type of materials for these standards.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beasley et al. (Patent No.: US 11,079,347 B1)
Jahn (Publication No.: US 2019/0072507 A1)
Peck (Publication No.: US 2005/0130210 A1)
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
1/9/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852