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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/28/2026 has been entered.
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 6, 22, 29, 30 and 35 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.
The term “substantially parallel” in claims 6, 22, and 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner shall interpret the claims to require an exactly parallel relationship while allowing minor angular deviation from parallel that would still be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean approximately parallel. Clearly oblique, perpendicular or traverse relationships shall not be encompassed by this interpretation.
The term “substantially planar” in claims 29 and 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner shall interpret the claims to require principal portions of the identified structure be generally arranged in a common plane while permitting finite thickness and incidental departures from a mathematically exact plane. Considering the BRI of the term “planar”, 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. Accordingly, based on the indefinite term “substantially planar”, the micron sized fluctuations of Albers are within the acceptable meaning of substantially planar, given that they are within the tolerance of fluctuations of the claimed invention.
The term “substantially normal” in claim 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner shall interpret the claims to require an exactly perpendicular relationship while allowing minor angular deviation from normal that would still be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to mean approximately perpendicular. Clearly oblique, parallel or traverse relationships shall not be encompassed by this interpretation.
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, 3-6, 11, 22-24, 29-31 and 33 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 1332/1432 (Figures 7, 13-14; [0042-43]);
- 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 13-14; [0040]; [0020]); and
- a flat mesh sensor cover 1332/1432 coupled to the housing 108 and extending across the opening, wherein the flat mesh sensor cover 1332/1432 is seated within a recessed well 1304/1404 of the housing (Figures 13-14; [0042-43]) and coupled to multiple adherence surfaces ([0024]; [0027]) of the recessed well to reduce a step height between a top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover and the exterior surface of the housing, reduce dirt or debris collection at the opening ([0034]), reduce turbulence at the exterior surface during impulse noise or shock wave events, improve aerodynamic response to overpressure, and reduce exterior damage to the flat mesh sensor cover during use (Figures 13-14; Claim 1; [0024-26]; [0028]; [0020]; [0042-43], intended uses and benefits provided by the disclosed structure).
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 13-14; [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 13-14).
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 13-14).
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 in the housing through a flat mesh sensor cover 1332/1432 coupled to the housing, wherein the flat mesh sensor cover, when coupled to the housing, extends across the opening and is seated within a recessed well 1304/1404 of the housing (Figures 13-14; [0042-43]) and coupled to multiple adherence surfaces ([0024]; [0027]) of the recessed well to reduce a step height between a top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover and the exterior surface of the housing, reduce dirt or debris collection at the opening ([0034]), reduce turbulence at the exterior surface during impulse noise or shock wave events, improve aerodynamic response to overpressure, and reduce exterior damage to the flat mesh sensor cover during use (Figures 13-14; Claim 1; [0024-26]; [0028]; [0020]; [0042-43], intended uses and benefits provided by the disclosed structure).
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 13-14, 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 29, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover is substantially planar across the opening and free of sinusoidal, rectangular, triangular, or dome-shaped protrusions over the opening ([0024]).
Considering claim 30, Albers discloses that the top surface of the flat mesh sensor cover is substantially planar across the opening and free of surface-area-increasing ridges over the opening ([0024]).
Considering claim 31, Albers discloses that the flat mesh sensor cover is seated within the housing with no exposed annular gap between a perimeter of the flat mesh sensor cover and the housing at the exterior surface (Figure 14).
Considering claim 33, Albers discloses that the housing or the flat mesh sensor cover includes one or more rounded, contoured, or angled transitions between the housing and the flat mesh sensor cover to reduce dirt or debris collection at the opening (Figures 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]).
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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claim 32, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a blast sensor system having a flat mesh sensor cover that is seated within a recessed well of the housing and coupled to multiple adherence surfaces of the recessed well adhered along the multiple adherence surfaces to reduce a gap or a step between the flat mesh sensor cover and the housing to reduce ingress of dirt or debris between the flat mesh sensor cover and the housing, wherein the multiple adherence surfaces include first and second surfaces on different planes.
The invention by Albers discloses that the flat mesh sensor cover is adhered around the opening, but only on one plane.
Considering claim 34, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a blast sensor system having a flat mesh sensor cover that is seated within a recessed well of the housing and bonded to both a bottom surface and at least one sidewall surface of the recessed well.
The invention by Albers discloses that the recessed flat mesh sensor cover is bonded at a bottom surface of the well, but not at at least one sidewall surface of the recessed well.
Claim 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Considering claim 35, the prior art made of record fails to disclose, suggest or otherwise render obvious the subject matter of a blast sensor having a flat mesh sensor cover coupled to the housing and extending across the opening, wherein the flat mesh sensor cover includes a top surface substantially parallel to the exterior surface of the housing, an edge portion substantially normal to the top surface and adhered to a sidewall of the opening, and a curved portion between the top surface and the edge portion configured to reduce a step height and a gap between the top surface of the flat mesh sensor wherein the flat mesh sensor cover comprises a metal mesh material having a thickness and first and second surfaces, wherein the edge portion and the top surface comprise continuous portions of a same sheet face of the metal mesh material.
The invention by Albers discloses that the recessed flat mesh sensor cover is bonded at a bottom surface of the well, but not at at least one sidewall surface of the recessed well.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the response, Applicant argues that Albers fails to disclose that the ingress protection element is integrated into a recess well and coupled to multiple adherence surfaces with the intended functionality arising from these features being “to reduce step height, debris collection, turbulence, and exterior damage in connection with impulse noise or shock wave events.
However, Albers shows two embodiments in Figure 13 and 14, [0042-43] where the recessed well 1304/1404 contains the flat mesh sensor cover 1332/1432 which is adhered at at least a plurality of surfaces. Furthermore, Albers makes it clear in [0017] and [0034] that the mesh cover is provided to reduce ingress of contaminants. The functionality claimed is provided by the claimed structure. If the Applicant is relying on specific structure, perhaps they can claim the specific structure?
During the interview of 8/27/2026, the Applicant indicated that the intention of the “multiple adherence surfaces” was to mean multiple different surfaces, not the same surface. However, this limitation is not presently claimed, although it is discussed further in the arguments with respect to claims 32, 34 and 35.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained with respect to claims 1 and 11 and their pending dependents, with the exception of claims 32 and 34, which are objected to.
Conclusion
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 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights