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 First Action on the Merits.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is objected to for containing nothing but unlabeled boxes. Regarding the content of drawings 37 C.F.R. 1.83 (a) states:
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are included in the specification are, except for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1: In line 3, insert a colon after comprising.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/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.
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 maintains that there are “one or more sensors” as recited in claim 1. However claim 6 also recites “a sensor among the one or more sensors has a sensitivity range that differs from another sensor.” Therefore for these limitations to be consistent, the “one or more sensors” from claim 1 needs to be narrowed down to --at least two sensors--. The Examiner recommends using language such as “wherein the one or more sensors is at least two sensors and…”
Regarding claims 5 and 8: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation 1-800 ppm, and the claim also recites 1-500 ppm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. This is also true of the “preferably” phrase in claim 5.
Regarding claim 11: This claim uses the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 recites that 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.” This is simply a definition of a filter. A filter filters fluid. Therefore claim 2 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and claim 2 is in improper dependent form.
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 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 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).
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 (para. 60-62).
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 filter, preferably a chemical sorption filter (VOC sensor in para. 56).
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 the filter element and/or 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, 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, or a parameter associated with a remaining useful life of the filter element.
Regarding claim 13: CNH discloses: the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle (para. 19).
Regarding claim 14: CNH discloses: A vehicle (para. 19) comprising the vehicle ventilation system comprising the filter element measuring system 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).
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 first component with the pre-determined concentration 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 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); (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).
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 has been included with this office action. All references to text in MOGI are to the attached 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GAUTHE et al. (EP 3845404) teaches a system for determining the condition of a vehicle air filter by putting a predetermined fluid through one side and measuring the concentration of particles on the other side.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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 2896