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 § 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 1-9, 11-19 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albers (WO 2020/210134).
Considering claim 1, Albers discloses a blast sensor system, comprising:
- a housing 108 having an opening 1132 (Figures 11-13; [0040]);
- a blast sensor 102 proximate an exterior surface of the housing configured to detect or monitor impulse noise or shock wave events at the exterior surface of the housing (Figures 11-13; [0040]; [0020]); and
- a flat mesh sensor cover 1328 coupled to the housing 108 having a top surface that, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than a radius of the opening of the housing (Figures 11-13; Claim 1; [0024-26]; [0028]; [0020]).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, Applicant has dictated that “flat” can include non-planar portions having height differences of at least .158” or 2.5 +/- .1 mm, as evidenced by Applicant’s discussion in [0039-41], with respect to Figures 9 and 10 and [0047-49], with respect to Figures 13 and 15-17, of the originally filed specification on 2/1/2024. Accordingly, the minute non-planar portions of Albers are considered flat within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Even still, if the visual depiction of the “flat” mesh sensor alone does not allow for non-planar portions in the claimed “flat” mesh, then Applicant’s tolerance, shown in Figure 13 of +/- .1mm is sufficiently flexible to allow the prior art’s fluctuation of .08mm to be considered flat.
Considering claim 2, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than one half of the radius of the opening of the housing (Figures 11-13).
Considering claim 3, Albers discloses that top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than 2 mm (Figures 11-13; [0024], total thickness of the mesh is less than 100 microns, even if surface mounted it would be less than 2 mm).
Considering claim 4, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than 1 mm (Figures 11-13; [0024], total thickness of the mesh is less than 100 microns, even if surface mounted it would be less than 1 mm).
Considering claim 5, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, does not extend above the exterior surface of the housing (Figures 11 and 13).
Considering claim 6, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, is substantially parallel to the exterior surface of the housing (Figures 11-13).
Considering claim 7, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than one half of the radius of the opening of the housing (Figures 11-13) to reduce dirt and debris collection over the blast sensor, reduce protruding edges and overall blast sensor system profile, and to reduce damage to the flat mesh sensor cover ([0017]; [0025]; the intended use functionality is provided by the structure).
Considering claim 8, Albers discloses that the flat mesh sensor cover is adhered to the exterior surface of the housing ([0024], Figure 12).
Considering claim 9, Albers discloses that the flat mesh sensor cover is adhered to an inner surface of the housing ([0024]; Figure 11).
Considering claim 11, Albers discloses a method comprising:
- detecting or monitoring impulse noise or shock wave events at an exterior surface of a housing 108 using a blast sensor 102 proximate an opening 1132 in the housing through a flat mesh sensor cover 1328 coupled to the housing, wherein a top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than a radius of the opening in the housing (Figures 11-13; Claim 1; [0024-26]; [0028]; [0020]; [0040]).
Considering claim 12, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than one half of the radius of the opening of the housing (Figures 11-13).
Considering claim 13, Albers discloses that top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than 2 mm (Figures 11-13; [0024], total thickness of the mesh is less than 100 microns, even if surface mounted it would be less than 2 mm).
Considering claim 14, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than 1 mm (Figures 11-13; [0024], total thickness of the mesh is less than 100 microns, even if surface mounted it would be less than 1 mm).
Considering claim 15, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, does not extend above the exterior surface of the housing (Figures 11 and 13).
Considering claim 16, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, is substantially parallel to the exterior surface of the housing (Figures 11-13).
Considering claim 17, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends above the exterior surface of the housing less than one half of the radius of the opening of the housing (Figures 11-13) to reduce dirt and debris collection over the blast sensor, reduce protruding edges and overall blast sensor system profile, and to reduce damage to the flat mesh sensor cover ([0017]; [0025]; the intended use functionality is provided by the structure).
Considering claim 18, Albers discloses that the flat mesh sensor cover is adhered to the exterior surface of the housing ([0024], Figure 12).
Considering claim 19, Albers discloses that the flat mesh sensor cover is adhered to an inner surface of the housing ([0024]; Figure 11).
Considering claim 22, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover is substantially parallel to the exterior surface of the housing, without protruding edges, reducing turbulence at the exterior surface of the housing relative to a non-planar mesh sensor dome and more accurately detecting peak overpressure of impulse noise or shock wave events (Figures 1-2, 8-13, wherein the flatness of the mesh sensor cover is less than .08 mm, less than the tolerance of the height fluctuation of the claimed invention).
Considering claim 23, Albers discloses that one or more edges of the opening at the exterior surface of the housing are rounded, contoured, or angled to reduce an angle of intersection between the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover and the opening to reduce collection of dirt or debris (Figures 7 and 13-14).
Considering claim 24, Albers discloses that the exterior surface of the housing comprises raised protrusions surrounding the flat mesh sensor cover, the raised protrusions providing adherence surfaces for the flat mesh sensor cover and redirecting impacts away from the flat mesh sensor cover toward the housing (Figures 5 and 7).
Considering claim 25, Albers discloses that the housing includes a recessed well at the exterior surface, the flat mesh sensor cover seated within the recessed well, reducing a height of a step between the flat mesh sensor cover and the exterior surface of the housing (Figure 7 and 13-14).
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albers (WO 2020/210134) in view of Borkholder et al. (US 2016/0097756 A1) and Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0388808 A1).
Considering claim 10, Albers fails to disclose that the flat mesh sensor cover comprises sintered layers of different mesh material including a first layer having openings with a first diameter and a second layer having openings with a second diameter different than the first diameter.
However, Borkholder teaches the use of a multi-layered mesh sensor cover 20(1) comprising layers of different mesh material including a first layer having openings with a first diameter and a second layer having openings with a second diameter different than the first diameter ([0028]; [0027], wherein other types of covers may be used; [00]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of mesh layers having differing mesh pore sizes, as taught by Borkholder, in the invention by Albers. The motivation for doing so is to provide particulate filtering, as already suggested by Albers, with a level of increased strength, as taught by Borkholder ([0028]).
The invention by Albers, as modified by Borkholder, fails to disclose that the multi-layer mesh cover is sintered.
However, Takahashi teaches the use of a multi-layer mesh filter that is sintered ([0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilizes a sintered plurality of mesh layers, as taught by Takahashi, in the invention by Albers, as modified by Borkholder. The motivation for doing so is to provide enhanced strength, as taught by Takahashi ([0169-170])
Considering claim 20, Albers fails to disclose that the flat mesh sensor cover comprises sintered layers of different mesh material including a first layer having openings with a first diameter and a second layer having openings with a second diameter different than the first diameter.
However, Borkholder teaches the use of a multi-layered mesh sensor cover 20(1) comprising layers of different mesh material including a first layer having openings with a first diameter and a second layer having openings with a second diameter different than the first diameter ([0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plurality of mesh layers having differing mesh pore sizes, as taught by Borkholder, in the invention by Albers. The motivation for doing so is to provide particulate filtering, as already suggested by Albers, with a level of increased strength, as taught by Borkholder ([0028]).
The invention by Albers, as modified by Borkholder, fails to disclose that the multi-layer mesh cover is sintered.
However, Takahashi teaches the use of a multi-layer mesh filter that is sintered ([0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilizes a sintered plurality of mesh layers, as taught by Takahashi, in the invention by Albers, as modified by Borkholder. The motivation for doing so is to provide enhanced strength, as taught by Takahashi ([0169-170]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albers (WO 2020/210134) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2019/0388808 A1).
Considering claim 21, Albers fails to explicitly disclose that the flat mesh sensor covers comprises top and bottom mesh layers with different opening diameters.
However, Takahashi presents a filter medium having an upper mesh layer with fine openings and a lower mesh layer having larger openings, the lower mesh layer providing structural strength ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilizes an upper layer having fine openings and a lower mesh layer having larger openings, as taught by Takahashi, in the invention by Albers. The motivation for doing so is to provide structural strength, as suggested by Takahashi (Figure 3(c); [0063]).
Considering claim 28, Albers fails to explicitly disclose that the flat mesh sensor cover comprises at least one of a woven wire mesh, a stainless steel mesh, or a nickel alloy wire mesh.
However, Takahashi teaches the use of a flat mesh having at least one of a woven wire mesh, a stainless steel mesh, or a nickel alloy wire mesh ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flat mesh having a woven wire mesh, a stainless steel mesh, or a nickel alloy wire mesh, as taught by Takahashi, in the invention by Albers. The motivation for doing so is to provide the required filtration of substances while also providing the required strength, as suggested by Takahashi ([0063]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albers (WO 2020/210134) in view of Brandes et al. (US 2011/0298371 A1).
Considering claim 26, Albers discloses the use of adhesive or epoxy for coupling the ingress protection elements relative to the surface of the housing, but fails to disclose the use of snap-in mechanical connections.
However, Brandes teaches the use of a snap-in cover configured to retain a filter cover at the exterior surface of a housing using one or more mechanical snap-in features, the snap-in cover enabling replacement of the filter cover ([0051], filter elements disposed on the external surface are mechanically retained by snap fittings which allow for removability for cleaning and changing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a snap-in cover mechanism for retaining the flat mesh sensor cover to the housing, as taught by Brandes, in the invention by Albers. The motivation for doing so, as suggested by Brandes, is to allow removability of the filter for cleaning and replacement ([0051]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albers (WO 2020/210134) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2005/0269654 A1).
Considering claim 27, Albers fails to disclose an interior thermoplastic layer covering interior electronics of the housing.
However, Tanaka teaches the use of an interior thermoplastic layer covering interior electronics of the housing, the interior thermoplastic layer 31 providing water protection to a sensor, wherein a port 33 of the sensor remains uncovered by the interior thermoplastic layer (Figures 1-2; [0009]; [0034]; [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize thermoplastic covering the internal electronics of the blast sensor of Albers, as suggested by Tanaka. The motivation for doing so is to provide corrosion protection to the electronics, as suggested by Tanaka ([0009-10]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant begins to argue that the invention by Albers does not provide a flat mesh cover “without protruding edges to improve aerodynamics to overpressure and reduce exterior damage to the flat mesh sensor cover during use”. Applicant argues that Albers expressly discloses non-planar portions on its mesh cover, and thus should not be considered flat. These arguments applied mostly to claims 1-9 and 11.
However, as discussed above with respect to the BRI of the term “flat”, Applicant has allowed for a 2.5 +/- 0.1 mm projection of the height (H) of the claimed flat mesh sensor cover. Referring back to Albers, in [0024] thereof, the entire fluctuation of flatness is a minimum 20 microns and a maximum of 80 microns, both of which are less than the tolerance of 100 microns in the projection height of the flat mesh sensor cover of the instant invention. As shown in Figure 1 of Albers, the combination of the positive and negative H1 and H2 displacements is considered H. Additionally, the functional language in the claim is a result of the flatness and the lack of protruding edges. Additionally, as shown in Figures 7-11, 13-14, the “flat” mesh cover of Albers has no edges that protrude past the surface of the housing by more than a radius of the opening of the housing, thus satisfying all of the structural limitations that provide the functional limitations. Applicant’s specification compares and contrasts their flat mesh sensor cover with typical -domed protruding mesh sensors covers. Albers, however, does not even disclose the typical domed protruding mesh sensor cover. Rather, Albers discloses a flat cover that does not extend past the housing surface and has minute undulations that are less than the tolerance of height fluctuation allowed by the instant invention.
Applicant’s argument that Albers is not considered flat is unpersuasive because even the tolerance of any fluctuation on the claimed flat mesh sensor cover is greater than the entire fluctuation of the prior art unevenness. Albers is essentially flatter than the claimed invention, based on Applicant’s own disclosure.
With respect to claims 10 and 20, Applicant raises two arguments one pages 7-8, one for each of the secondary references Borkholder and Takahashi.
With respect to Borkholder, Applicant again asserts that the invention by Albers is a protruding, non-flat mesh sensor. The Examiner against refutes this assertion based on the above discussed arguments. Continuing, Applicant does not refute that Borkholder does in fact disclose layers of different mesh material including a first layer having openings with a first diameter and a second layer having openings with a second diameter different than the first diameter. Applicant’s arguments are essentially based on the failure of Borkholder or Albers to disclose flat mesh and/or the bodily incorporation of a dome cover to the invention by Albers.
As has been stated, Albers discloses a flat mesh sensor cover, so in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, including Borkholder, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the combination of Albers, in view of Borkholder, would result in the use of the domed mesh of Borkholder, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner maintains that the combined teachings would suggest the use of multi-layer mesh, not the complete incorporation of a dome mesh with multi-layer mesh.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the combination of Albers, in view of Borkholder, are not persuasive.
Continuing on page 8, with respect to Takahashi, the Applicant discusses a number of arguments, briefly. The Examiner shall respond to the following types of arguments: number of references, non-analogous art, stated motivation for combination of Takahashi, lack of flat cover with non-protruding edges, Examiner’s lack of TSM in the prior art, hindsight reconstruction.
Applicant points out the use of three references in the rejection, as if to point out some improper logical leap or to render the strength of the rejection weaker in some way. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Applicant suggests that Albers, Borkholder and Takahashi are in “unrelated technical fields” (Page 8 of the response, 2nd to last full paragraph). This essentially hints at, or amounts to, an argument of non-analogous art, where the cited references must be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, despite addressing a different problem, or the cited references must be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, despite not being in the same field of endeavor, see MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). Applicant is suggesting that each of the references are from a field that is not the same as the instant claimed invention’ field of blast sensors protection because Albers is in the field of MEMS microphone ingress protection, while Borkholder is in the field of explosive blast event mapping, and Takahashi is in the field of industrial filtration.
With respect to Albers, both the instant invention and the invention by Albers are concerned with providing a protective mesh filter cover on the opening of a housing of an acoustic pressure sensor. It is clear that the invention by Albers and the instant invention are within the same or similar field of protective ingress covers for acoustic sensors.
With respect to Borkholder, both the instant invention and the invention by Borkholder are concerned with providing a mesh filter covering on the surface of a blast sensor. It is clear that these inventions are within the same field of endeavor.
With respect to Takahashi, both the instant invention and the invention by Takahashi are concerned with providing a sintered multi-layer mesh filter. While they are not in the same field of endeavor, both inventions do address the same problem of weakness in a mesh filter by using multiple layers and sintering the layers together. Therefore, the invention by Takahashi is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, and, thus, analogous.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments against the combination of Albers, Borkholder and Takahashi in the rejection of claims 10 and 20 are found to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim et al. (Various) is provided for showing flat mesh filters that are removably provided at a sensor port for providing ingress protection.
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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights