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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues on pp. 6-7 of the remarks that the modification of Livchak and Jacob is inappropriate because “[t]he proposed modification- moving both taps downstream of the filter-would destroy Livchak's primary diagnostic function” [pp. 6 of the remarks] and that “[t]he motivation to get a reading "independent of the pressure drop across the filter" runs directly contrary to Livchak's stated goal…” [pp. 6 of the remarks]; therefore Livchak teaches away from the proposed modification. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Jacob teaches a differential pressure measurement taken via tubes 54 and 56 across an annular flange for the purposes of determining the flow rate through a fume hood [column 3 lines 51-57 of Jacob]. Livchak discloses a first port and second port located on either side of an air filter element in order to determine the differential pressure across the air filter for the purpose of flow measurement [paragraphs 0009-0010 of Livchak]. However, Livchak also discloses that “[i]nstead of a filter, reference numeral 115 may represent an orifice plate or other calibrated flow resistance device and may include a smooth inlet transition (not shown separately) to maximize precision of flow measurement by means of pressure loss” [paragraph 0010 of Livckak]; therefore, modification with Jacob to provide for differential pressure measurement across an annular flange for the purposes of “…determination of the airflow rate that is independent of the pressure drop across the filter, which would be unpredictable and increase over time…” [see Non-Final rejection dated 02/27/2026] does not teach away from Livchak. For this reason the rejection is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak et. al (US 2008/0045132 A1) in view of Jacob et. al (US 6,059,260).
With respect to claim 1 Livchak discloses a vent hood for a cooking appliance, the vent hood comprising: a vent body [reference character 145] forming an inlet opening configured to receive a flow of gases into the vent body, the vent body forming an internal pathway [reference character 135 and 180] through which the flow of gases is permitted to an outlet opening, the vent body forming a first port [reference character 142] and a second port [reference character 140] each extending through the vent body to provide fluid communication between the internal pathway and an exterior volume1, the first port positioned proximate to the inlet opening, the second port positioned proximate to the outlet opening [see Fig. 1], the first port and the second port each configured to transmit a respective pressure value from the internal pathway to a pressure transducer [reference characters 0011 in paragraphs 0009]. Livchak further discloses an inlet manifold at which the inlet opening is formed; and a central manifold coupled to the inlet manifold, the central manifold positioned distal to the inlet opening at the inlet manifold [see annotated Fig. below].
Livchak does not disclose that the first port and the second port are both positioned either in the central manifold or the inlet manifold.
Jacob discloses an exhaust duct flow rate measuring device that includes an annular flange [reference character 58] and differential pressure taps [reference characters 54 and 56] “extending to a transmitter 60 which feeds information relating to the differential pressure across the flange 58 back to the fume hood controller. The controller uses this information to determine the proper air flow through the segment 12” [column 3 lines 51-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Livchak by relocating the pressure taps to either the central manifold or the inlet manifold with an annular flange between the pressure taps in order to allow for determination of the airflow rate that is independent of the pressure drop across the filter, which would be unpredictable and increase over time.
PNG
media_image1.png
351
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4 Livchak discloses that the first port is positioned at the inlet manifold, and wherein the second port is positioned at the central manifold [see Fig. 1].
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak et. al (US 2008/0045132 A1) in view of Jacob et. al (US 6,059,260).
With respect to claim 7 Livchak discloses a system for airflow determination at a vent hood for a cooking appliance, the system comprising: a vent body [reference character 145] forming an inlet opening configured to receive a flow of gases into the vent body, the vent body forming an internal pathway [reference character 135 and 180] through which the flow of gases is permitted to an outlet opening, the vent body forming a first port [reference character 142] and a second port [reference character 140] each extending through the vent body to provide fluid communication between the internal pathway and an exterior volume2, the first port positioned proximate to the inlet opening, the second port positioned proximate to the outlet opening; a computing device [reference characters 320 and 330] operably coupled to the first port and the second port, the computing device configured to obtain a differential pressure value corresponding to a difference in pressure between the first port and the second port, wherein the difference in pressure between the first port and the second port correspond to the internal pathway at the vent hood [see paragraphs 0009 and 0011-0012]. Livchak further discloses an inlet manifold at which the inlet opening is formed; and a central manifold coupled to the inlet manifold, the central manifold positioned distal to the inlet opening at the inlet manifold [see annotated Fig. above].
Livchak does not disclose that the first port and the second port are both positioned either in the central manifold or the inlet manifold.
Jacob discloses an exhaust duct flow rate measuring device that includes an annular flange [reference character 58] and differential pressure taps [reference characters 54 and 56] “extending to a transmitter 60 which feeds information relating to the differential pressure across the flange 58 back to the fume hood controller. The controller uses this information to determine the proper air flow through the segment 12” [column 3 lines 51-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Livchak by relocating the pressure taps to either the central manifold or the inlet manifold with an annular flange between the pressure taps in order to allow for determination of the airflow rate that is independent of the pressure drop across the filter, which would be unpredictable and increase over time.
With respect to claim 10 Livchak discloses that the first port is positioned at the inlet manifold, and wherein the second port is positioned at the central manifold [see Fig. 1].
With respect to claim 13 Livchak discloses a differential pressure transducer configured to determine the difference in pressure between the first port and the second port [see paragraphs 0009 and 0011-0012].
With respect to claim 14 Livchak discloses that the computing device comprising a processor configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: determining a difference in pressure between the first port and the second port; and determining an airflow value based at least on the difference in pressure between the first port and the second port [see paragraphs 0009 and 0011-0012].
With respect to claim 15 Livchak discloses that comparing the airflow value to an airflow threshold [F0, see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0013-0014]; generating a first signal [see annotated Fig. below] when the airflow value is at or above the airflow threshold value; and generating a second signal [see annotated Fig. below] when the airflow value is below the airflow threshold value.
PNG
media_image2.png
647
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16 Livckak discloses obtaining a location signal; and determining the airflow threshold based on the location signal. Livchak specifically discloses “a predetermined flow rate value at which the associated exhaust hood 145 (See FIG. 1) is desired to operate” [paragraph 0011], a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the predetermined flow rate would depend on the installation location3.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak et. al (US 2008/0045132 A1) in view of Jacob et. al (US 6,059,260).
With respect to claim 17 Livchak discloses a method for airflow determination at a vent hood [reference character 145] for a cooking appliance, the method comprising: forming a first port [reference character 142] and a second port [reference character 140] each extending through the vent hood to provide fluid communication between an internal pathway [reference characters 135 and 180] and an exterior volume4, the first port positioned proximate to the inlet opening, the second port positioned proximate to the outlet opening; obtaining, via a computing device [reference characters 320 and 330], a differential pressure between the first port and the second port, wherein a first pressure from the first port and a second pressure from the second port each correspond to the internal pathway at the vent hood; and determining, via the computing device, an airflow value based at least on the differential pressure between the first port and the second port [see paragraphs 0009 and 0011-0012]. Livchak further discloses an inlet manifold at which the inlet opening is formed; and a central manifold coupled to the inlet manifold, the central manifold positioned distal to the inlet opening at the inlet manifold [see annotated Fig. above].
Livchak does not disclose that the first port and the second port are both positioned either in the central manifold or the inlet manifold.
Jacob discloses an exhaust duct flow rate measuring device that includes an annular flange [reference character 58] and differential pressure taps [reference characters 54 and 56] “extending to a transmitter 60 which feeds information relating to the differential pressure across the flange 58 back to the fume hood controller. The controller uses this information to determine the proper air flow through the segment 12” [column 3 lines 51-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Livchak by relocating the pressure taps to either the central manifold or the inlet manifold with an annular flange between the pressure taps in order to allow for determination of the airflow rate that is independent of the pressure drop across the filter, which would be unpredictable and increase over time.
With respect to claim 18 Livchak discloses that obtaining the differential pressure between the first port and the second port comprises: determining a first pressure value corresponding to the internal pathway at the first port at the vent hood; and determining a second pressure value corresponding to the internal pathway at the second port at the vent hood [see paragraphs 0009 and 0011-0012].
With respect to claim 19 Livchak discloses comparing, via the computing device, the airflow value to an airflow threshold [F0, see Fig. 3 and paragraph 0013-0014]; generating, via the computing device, a first signal when the airflow value is at or above the airflow threshold value; and generating, via the computing device, a second signal when the airflow value is below the airflow threshold value [see annotated Fig. above associated with claim 15].
With respect to claim 20 Livchak discloses obtaining, via the computing device, a location signal; and determining, via the computing device, the airflow threshold based on the location signal. Livchak specifically discloses “a predetermined flow rate value at which the associated exhaust hood 145 (See FIG. 1) is desired to operate” [paragraph 0011], a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the predetermined flow rate would depend on the installation location5
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Livchak et. al (US 2008/0045132 A1) in view of Jacob et. al (US 6,059,260) and further in view of Bowers et. al (US 3,067,611).
With respect to claims 2 and 8 Livchak does not disclose a tube fitting positioned at the first port and the second port.
Bowers disclose pressure taps [reference characters 17, 25, and 22] with tube fittings [reference characters 18, 26, and 23]. The fittings allow for the connection of tubes which further connected to pressure transducers. [see Fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Livchak by providing tube fittings on the pressure taps, as taught by Bowers, in order to allow for the fitting of tubes and pressure transducers to the pressure taps.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
1 Livckak discloses “[a] differential pressure reading may also be generated using an additional pressure sensor 142 or a differential sensor (not shown separately) with taps upstream and downstream of the filter” [paragraph 0009], a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a pressure tap is a small perpendicular hole in the wall of a duct or pipe which communicates the duct to a region outside of the duct or pipe, where a pressure gauge or transducer would be connected.
2 See footnote 1.
3 “The location signal may correspond generally to a facility at which the vent hood is installed…” [paragraph 0041 of the applicant’s PgPub].
4 See footnote 1.
5 See footnote 3.
Prosecution Insights