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 .
Status of Application
A Preliminary Amendment to the Specification was filed on 2/1/2024. Accordingly, an Office Action on the merits of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 and 11-19 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, in view of the specification, Applicant has dictated that “flat” can include non-planar portions having height differences of at least .158” or 2.5mm, 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.
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).
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]).
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]).
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 January 10, 2026