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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I1 in the reply filed on 14 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden exists for examination both groups together. Upon examination of group I, the prior art found applies to group II as well and therefore all claims are being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “A” should be inserted at the beginning of the claim.
The claim recites the limitation of “the inlet of the detection module” which lacks antecedent basis and should be changed to an inlet of the detection module.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “a” should be inserted before “cage or lattice.”
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 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 27 and 28 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, on page 4, the claim recites the phrase “by the fact that” which is unclear and will be excluded for examination as it does not appear to be necessary.
The claim recites the limitation on page 4 that the filter element is retained “preferably in a removable way,” however it is not clear if this limitation is required or not to satisfy the claim since the term “preferably” would not necessarily include the limitation following.
The claim recites the limitation “when they are mechanically linked” in the final line. It is not clear as to what the “they” refers to as multiple elements have been previously disclosed. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed to refer to the two mounting elements.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation of “or in any case for the most part” which is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted as or mostly inside.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation that the mounting elements interact to “define a constraint removable” which is unclear and will be interpreted as the elements form a reversible connection, or similar.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation of “said separation structure” which lacks antecedent basis since no such structure has been previously disclosed in the claim or parent claim 1. A separation structure was previously recited in claim 13, so it is therefore not clear if the claim should depend from claim 1 or from claim 13.
Regarding claim 24, the term “tightly” in the claim is a term of degree which is indefinite since it is unclear as to what would be considered “tight” versus loose.
All claims which depend from those above are rejected for the same reasons due to their dependency thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meimberg et al. US 2022/0146298.
Regarding claim 1, Meimberg discloses a gas meter (100), comprising:
a containment casing (102) in which a gas inlet (118) is defined inside the containment casing (102) and an outlet (134) for the exit of the gas from the containment casing,
a detection module (130, 132) which is housed inside the containment casing (102) and which is configured to detect one or more parameters relating to the gas entering the containment casing itself (gas flow rate, paragraph 0027),
a first zone (chamber 120) and a second zone (at approximately the tip of arrow 122 in fig. 1A), both defined inside the casing (102), said first zone (120) being in fluid communication with the inlet (116), said second zone being in fluid communication with the inlet (126b) of the detection module, the fluidic connection between said first zone and said second zone occurring exclusively through at least one passage (fig. 1B shows the passageway 122 between the chambers) comprising filtration means (122), said filtration means comprising at least one filter element (124) which is mounted on separation means (elements 144, 146) which separate said first and said second zone and by the fact that said filter element is made of material different from that with which said separation means are made (paragraph 0027 teaches the dust trap as being made of one material, while paragraph 0037 teaches the filter element as being from another, different material), wherein said separation means comprise at least two mounting elements (upper and lower conductive grids) which are configured to be mechanically bonded to each other in a removable manner (via frame 142), said filter element is a filter mat (paragraph 0034) which is positioned and/or retained, preferably in a removable way, between said at least two mounting elements when they are mechanically linked together (see fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, the filter element of Meimberg is housed inside the separation means as seen in fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in fig. 1B, the filter element of Meimberg is mounted on one of said mounting elements (lower grid, 146) and held in position by the other mounting element (upper grid 144).
Regarding claim 5, fig. 2B of Meimberg illustrates an embodiment which comprises corresponding elements to those above and further includes at least two mounting elements 222, 216 which are configured to interact operatively with each other so as to define a constraint removable and also in such a way as to act in correspondence with at least a part of the opposite faces and/or the edges of a corresponding filter element as they sandwich it therein.
Regarding claim 6, the gas meter of Meimberg is arranged such that the two mounting elements defined when linked together, an intermediate chamber in which the filter element is housed which is fluidically interposed between the first zone and the second zone as claimed (fig. 1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 8, the at least two mounting elements of Meimberg are configured to sandwich together and hold said filter arrangement as seen in fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 9, the at least two mounting elements of Meimberg are configured to define a support structure for said filter arrangement as seen in fig. 1B.
Regarding claim 10, the at least two mounting structures of Meimberg form a cage around the filter as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, the filter element of Meimberg is mounted on the separation means around an inlet duct 116 which is housed inside the containment casing and which fluidically connects the inlet port with the first zone as seen in fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 13, the separation means of Meimberg comprise a separation structure 112 which delimits the first zone 120 internally while the second zone is define externally (outside of trap 112) said at least one filter element being mounted on said structure.
Regarding claim 14, Meimberg teaches in inlet duct 116 which is housed inside the containment casing and is mechanically and fluidically connected to said inlet port 118, said separation structure 112 in fluid communication with the inlet duct and mounted on the inlet duct as seen in fig. 1A and 1B.
Regarding claim 16, the separation structure of Meimberg is in fluid communication with the inlet duct and associated with a side wall of said inlet duct as shown.
Regarding claim 19, Meimberg teaches an inlet duct 118 which is housed inside the containment casing and which is mechanically and fluidically connected to said inlet 118 and wherein the inlet duct comprises inside at least one gas passage channel (at 120) with at least one bottom which is closes so that dust of the gas entering the passage is deposited at least in part on the bottom of the channel (dust would settle in the dust trap during operation).
Regarding claim 28, fig. 2B of Meimberg illustrates an embodiment which comprises corresponding elements to those above and further includes at least two mounting elements 222, 216 which are configured to be mechanically constrained to each other in a removable way by means of a corresponding interlocking mechanical engagement means (paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 20, Meimberg discloses a gas meter (100), comprising:
a containment casing (102) in which a gas inlet (118) is defined inside the containment casing (102) and an outlet (134) for the exit of the gas from the containment casing,
an inlet duct (116) which is housed inside the containment casing and which is mechanically and fluidically connected to said inlet,
a detection module (130, 132) which is housed inside the containment casing (102) downstream of the inlet duct and which is configured to detect one or more parameters relating to the gas entering the containment casing itself (gas flow rate, paragraph 0027), wherein the inlet duct comprises inside at least one gas passage channel (at 120) with at least one bottom which is closes so that dust of the gas entering the passage is deposited at least in part on the bottom of the channel (dust would settle in the dust trap during operation).
Regarding claim 21, the gas meter of Meimberg comprises an opening for entry of gas into the at least one gas passage channel which faces the at least one bottom and an opening for the outlet of gas from the at least one gas passage changes which faces the bottom (fig. 1B shows the inlet and an outlet through the filter 124).
Regarding claim 24, the gas meter of Meimberg comprise the inlet duct with an inlet section (top) which fits tightly into an inlet fitting (seen in fig. 1A) provided at the gas inlet and outlet section (bottom of element 116) in correspondence with the inlet section, wherein the gas passage channel with the at least one bottom which is closed/blind so that dust of the gas entering the channel settles on the bottom of the gas passage channel, and at least one further gas passage (outlet by filter 124) connected to the outlet section of the inlet duct.
Regarding claim 25, the further gas passage of Meimberg can be defined as below the filter 124 so that dust entering the further gas passage channel would be deposited on the at least one bottom of the at least one further gas passage channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, as seen in fig. 1A of Meimberg, an outlet section of the inlet duct defines a larger passage area than a section of the inlet section of the duct itself and the inlet duct has a substantially flared longitudinal development that goes from the inlet portion towards the outlet portion (top to bottom).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meimberg as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Parker US 2013/0312638.
Regarding claim 4, Meimberg teaches the filter as being constructed of a woven fabric (paragraph 0037) and the separation means as being made of rigid plastic (paragraph 0027). Meimberg does not explicitly teach the filter as being a polymeric fiber fabric. Parker teaches a polymeric fiber fabric which can be used as a filter for air flow (paragraph 0402). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Parker with those of Meimberg in order to provide a polymeric fabric filter for filtering out smaller particles in the fluid flow in a more complete manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morihana and Berger teach gas flow meters with similar pathways and filtering means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Group I has been updated to include claim 28 as correctly noted by Applicant in the reply.
Prosecution Insights