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 .
Summary
Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1-16 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 20 May 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 20 May 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 15, and 16: Change “pre-determined” to --predetermined--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by CNH Industrial France (EP 3318434, hereinafter “CNH”).
Regarding claim 1: CNH discloses: A filter element measuring system (abstract) for use with a vehicle ventilation system (abstract) having a fluid channel (9b in FIG. 3a), the system configured to determine a loading status (“test of the efficiency of the filtration means” in the abstract; “know in real time the real saturation state of said filtration means” in para. 49) associated with a filter element (housing 14b holding filter 11b in Fig. 4b) comprising (i) a dosing module (spraying device 24 [FIG. 1b; para. 53] containing identified fluid that is sprayed upstream of the filter as discussed in para. 52) configured to provide a fluid having a pre-determined concentration of a first component into the fluid channel (para. 52); (ii) the filter element arranged in fluid communication with the dosing module (in HVAC air circuit 9 as discussed in para. 52-55) to filter the pre-determined concentration of the first component in the fluid channel (para. 52-55), to provide a filtered fluid comprising a modified concentration of the first component (monitoring for detection of the sprayed fluid in para. 55); (iii) one or more sensors (VOC sensor in para. 56) arranged in fluid communication with the filter element (at location 22; para. 56), and arranged to measure a value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component in the filtered fluid (para. 55-56); (iv) a processor operable to obtain a first input of a value indicative of the pre-determined concentration of the first component, and a second input of the value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component (A processor is inherent in whatever threshold is set such that the communication means receives the signal to display on a screen as discussed in para. 60-62. Also, para. 51 states that the process is done automatically meaning that there is a processor carrying out preprogrammed instructions. Please see the “Response to Amendment/Arguments” section below for further discussion of this limitation.), and to determine the loading status (“efficiency of the tested filtration means” in para. 60) associated with the filter element as a function of the value indicative of the pre-determined concentration the first component, and the value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component (It is inherent in the calculation of a positive result for detecting the presence of windshield wiper fluid as discussed in para. 60-62, that the sensor reading [value indicative of the modified concentration] will be compared to some threshold [value indicative of the pre-determined concentration]. Please see the “Response to Amendment/Arguments” section below for further discussion of this limitation.).
Regarding claim 2: CNH discloses: the filter element is configured to filter the fluid having the pre-determined concentration of the first component, to provide a reduced concentration of the first component in the filtered fluid, via at least one of absorption, adsorption and ion exchange (activated charcoal filter in para. 32.).
Regarding claim 3: CNH discloses: the filter element is arranged downstream to the dosing module, and the one or more sensors are arranged downstream to the filter element (para. 53).
Regarding claim 4: CNH discloses: the dosing module is configured to inject the fluid into the fluid channel, for a pre-determined duration (This is inherent in the fact that the dosing is done with automatic control as discussed in para. 51. The programming that controls the spraying will have some predetermined time that it is sprayed.).
Regarding claim 5: CNH discloses: the filter element is a chemical sorption filter (VOC sensor in para. 56 to detect what gets past activated charcoal filter in para. 32).
Regarding claim 7: CNH discloses: at least one of the one or more sensors is a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor (para. 56).
Regarding claim 10: CNH discloses: the dosing module (24) is disposed at an input of the fluid channel, or is disposed within the fluid channel (“upstream of the filter” in para. 52).
Regarding claim 11: CNH discloses: a diverter configured to redirect the filtered fluid to the vehicle, or to an exhaust for release into an external environment, wherein the diverter is disposed downstream to at least one of the filter element and the one or more sensors (para. 27).
Regarding claim 12: CNH discloses: the loading status associated with the filter element comprises at least one of: a parameter associated with an efficiency of the filter element (“saturation state of said filtration means” in para. 49), a parameter associated with a loading rate of the filter element (“saturation state of said filtration means” in para. 49), a parameter associated with a used life of the filter element (“saturation state of said filtration means” in para. 49), or a parameter associated with a remaining useful life of the filter element (“saturation state of said filtration means” in para. 49).
Regarding claim 13: CNH discloses: the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle (para. 19).
Regarding claim 14: CNH discloses: A vehicle (para. 19) comprising the filter element measuring system for a vehicle ventilation system having a fluid channel according to claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.).
Regarding claim 15: CNH discloses: A device for use with a vehicle (para. 19) comprising a ventilation system (abstract) having a fluid channel (9b in FIG. 3a), the device configured to determine a loading status associated with a filter element (housing 14b holding filter 11b in FIG. 4b) comprising at least one processor (A processor is inherent in whatever threshold is set such that the communication means receives the signal as discussed in para. 60-62. Also, para. 51 states that the process is done automatically meaning that there is a processor carrying out preprogrammed instructions.); and a memory having instructions stored therein, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (i) obtain a first input associated with a value indicative of a pre-determined concentration of a first component in a fluid provided to a fluid channel (A processor is inherent in whatever threshold is set such that the communication means receives the signal as discussed in para. 60-62. Also, para. 51 states that the process is done automatically meaning that there is a processor carrying out preprogrammed instructions.); (ii) obtain a second input associated with a value indicative of a modified concentration of the first component in the fluid channel after the fluid passes through the filter element (A processor is inherent in whatever threshold is set such that the communication means receives the signal as discussed in para. 60-62. Also, para. 51 states that the process is done automatically meaning that there is a processor carrying out preprogrammed instructions.); and (iii) determine the loading status (“efficiency of the tested filtration means” in para. 60) associated with the filter element as a function of the value indicative of the pre-determined concentration of the first component and the value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component (whatever the minimum amount is to trigger the signal as discussed in para. 60-62; Please see the “Response to Amendment/Arguments” section below for further discussion of these limitations.).
Regarding claim 16: CNH discloses: A method of determining a loading status of a filter element (abstract) of a vehicle (abstract) comprising a ventilation system having a fluid channel (abstract; 9b in FIG. 3a), the method comprising the steps of (i) providing a dosing module (spraying device 24 [FIG. 1b; para. 53] containing identified fluid that is sprayed upstream of the filter as discussed in para. 52) for providing a fluid comprising a pre-determined concentration value of a first component, into the fluid channel (para. 52); (ii) providing the filter element (housing 14b holding filter 11b in Fig. 4b) arranged in fluid communication with the dosing module (in HVAC air circuit 9 as discussed in para. 52-55), for filtering the pre-determined concentration of the first component in the fluid channel (para. 52-55), to provide a filtered fluid comprising a modified concentration of the first component (monitoring for detection of the sprayed fluid in para. 55); (iii) providing one or more sensors (VOC sensor in para. 56) arranged in fluid communication with the filter element (at location 22; para. 56), for measuring a value indicative of the predetermined concentration of the first component and a value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component in the filtered fluid (whatever the minimum amount is to trigger the signal as discussed in para. 60-62; See the Response to Amendment/Argument section below for further discussion of this limitation.); (iv) providing a processor (A processor is inherent in whatever threshold is set such that the communication means receives the signal as discussed in para. 60-62. Also, para. 51 states that the process is done automatically meaning that there is a processor carrying out preprogrammed instructions.), for obtaining a first input of a value indicative of the pre-determined concentration of the first component, and a second input of the value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component, and for determining the loading status (“efficiency of the tested filtration means” in para. 60) associated with the filter element as a function of the value of the pre-determined concentration the first component, and the value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component (whatever the minimum amount is to trigger the signal as discussed in para. 60-62; Please see the “Response to Amendment/Arguments” section below for further discussion of this limitation.).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CNH in view of SCRIPCA et al. (US 6096560).
Regarding claim 6: CNH does not disclose using different sensors with different sensitivity ranges.
SCRIPCA however does teach using different sensors with different sensitivity ranges (col. 1 line 61-col. 2 line 10) to detect gas (col. 1 lines 7-21).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use different sensors with different sensitivity ranges as taught by SCRIPCA for the gas sensor of CNH so that a sensor can be selected which has a sensitivity that matches the concentration of the gas to be detected (col. 1 line 61-col. 2 line 10 of SCRIPCA.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CNH.
Regarding claim 8: CNH teaches most aspects of the instant invention. However, CNH does not explicitly teach a sensitivity range of 1-800 ppm. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the sensitivity would determine what level of the “first component” can be detected.
The specific claimed sensitivity, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” sensitivity disclosed by CNH that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired threshold of contamination, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the sensitivity is used, as already suggested by CNH.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the sensitivity stated and since these sensitivities are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of CNH.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed sensitivity or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CNH in view of MOGI et al. (JP 2011226943). Please note that a machine translation of MOGI was included with the office action dated 20 Jan 2026. All references to text in MOGI are to that machine translation.
Regarding claim 9: CNH does not disclose that the first component is cyclohexane or ethyl acetate.
MOGI however does disclose a method for testing a filter (para. 1) which can be vehicle air filter (para. 31) and uses ethyl acetate as the gas to test the filter (para. 31).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use ethyl acetate or any of the gases listed in para. 31 of MOGI because it can be a gas that the filter is supposed to remove thus ensuring functionality (para. 32 of MOGI).
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The new drawings are acknowledged and the previous objections thereto are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 to overcome the previous objection is acknowledged and said objection is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 2 to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is acknowledged and said rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 7-8 of the Response) that CNH does not disclose the limitations of obtaining “a first input value indicative of the pre-determined concentration…and a second input of the value indicative of the modified concentration” as recited in claim 1. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. CNH does not explicitly define these particular values or state that a processor determines “the loading status associated with the filter element as a function of the value indicative of the pre-determined concentration of the first component, and the value indicative of the modified concentration of the first component,” however this is inherent in the way that modern sensors and computers work. It is so routine in the art that CNH did not bother to lay it out explicitly. Please note that the CNH reference is from 2018, well into the time when modern vehicles have many different ECUs for controlling different functions. This is indicated by the “control circuit board” in para. 27, the fact that the output can be displayed on a screen in para. 61, and the fact that the procedure can be automated as discussed in para. 50-51. Therefore whatever the output of the sensor is (0-10 V and 4-20 mA are common standards), for that output to be processed and end up on a screen that the driver can see, it has to be received by some kind of processor which will compare it to some kind of threshold in order to get even a binary output of filter=bad or filter=good. Therefore the output of the sensor is the “value indicative of the modified concentration” and the threshold is the “value indicative of the predetermined concentration.” Therefore CNH meets all of the limitations of claim 1. Please note that even in the extreme case of a sensor that somehow has only a binary output indicating either “gas present” or “no gas present,” for that output to end up on a screen so the driver can see it, it has to be processed and the detection limit of the sensor is then the threshold and the processor still receives a “value indicative of the modified concentration” and a “value indicative of the predetermined concentration.” Please note that the Examiner has given these terms their broadest reasonable interpretation such that an output of 0 indicating that there is no gas present is a “value indicative of the predetermined concentration” and a positive output is a “value indicative of the modified concentration.” Because the values only have to be “indicative” of the concentration, then a 0 indicates that none of the gas is present, and a positive output indicates that the concentration has been modified. This language does not require these values to be specific numeric concentration (e.g. 472 ppm).
Please note that the 102 rejection above has been maintained by the Examiner based on a broader interpretation of the claim language than the Applicant is using. As it is probably possible to use narrower language to avoid this broader interpretation, the Applicant should note that MOGI (already of record) explicitly states using a sensor to determine the concentration of a tracer gas before the gas is injected upstream of the filter (“background gas concentration” in para. 67). The controller then “stores the background concentration measurement data” (para. 70). Then test gas is injected into the duct upstream of the filter (para. 72), the concentration is measured again (para. 75), and the removal efficiency of the filter is calculated from this data (para. 91).
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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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 M Sweeney 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights