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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 December 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-15 were originally filed.
Claims 1-15 were amended by the preliminary amendment submitted 12 December 2023.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), 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.
Re claim 1, Applicant recites “a wall of a damper” and “a wall next to the hole”, then subsequently recites, “the wall extending from the top surface”. However, Applicant lacks a clear antecedent basis for this limitation, leading to multiple, reasonable interpretations, thereby rendering it indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this and subsequent instances of “the wall” as being a wall of the measurement probe and not a wall of the damper.
Re claims 2-15, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim 1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussed in the rejection above. Accordingly, claims 2-15 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 1. Furthermore, additional instances of “the wall”, lacking a clear antecedence, are recited in claims 2-7 and 11-12.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Moeller et al., US20220221380 (“MOELLER”).
Re claim 1, MOELLER discloses:
A measurement probe for measuring air pressure inside an air duct, the measurement probe arranged to be installed to a wall of the air duct or to a wall of a damper having at least one damper blade, the damper installed to the air duct [0019], [0026], wherein the measurement probe comprises:
a top surface and a bottom surface [Fig.4, elements 23/24];
a measurement point comprising a hole extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the hole arranged to be connected to an air channel and further to a pressure sensor [Fig.4, opening associated w/ elements 23/24, sensor 30];
a wall next to the hole, the wall extending from the top surface [Fig.4, connecting wall between elements 23/24]
Re claim 2, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 1, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the wall extends parallell to the hole [Fig.4, connecting wall between elements 23/24]
Re claim 3, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 1, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the wall is curved around the hole and the wall is curved with a radius R [0046]
Re claim 4, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 3, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the radius R is 4 to 10 millimeters [0046]
Re claim 5, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 3, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the wall has a central angle of 45-270 degrees [Fig.4, 90 degrees with perpendicular angle from wall]
Re claim 6, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 3, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the wall has a central angle of 180 degrees [Fig.4, 180 degrees parallel to hole]
Re claim 7, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 1, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein a height of the wall is 3 to 15 millimeters [0046]
Re claim 8, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 1, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein a height of the wall is 5 to 10 millimeters from the top surface [0056-0057]
Re claim 9, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 1, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
the probe further comprising: a flange part having a perimeter; an elongated part having a first end and a second end; and wherein the flange part is positioned at the first end of the elongated part [Fig.4 and associated text]
Re claim 10, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 9, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the perimeter has a circular or hexagonal shape [Fig.8 and associated text]
Re claim 11, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 9, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the wall comprises an inner surface facing the hole and the wall comprises an outer surface facing in an opposite direction to the inner surface [Fig.4 and associated text]
Re claim 12, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 11, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the outer surface has a shape that corresponds at least partially to a shape of the perimeter of the flange part [Figs.4/8 and associated text]
Re claim 13, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 9, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the flange part has a greater diameter than the elongated part [Fig.4 and associated text]
Re claim 14, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 9, as shown above. MOELLER further discloses:
wherein the flange part comprises the top surface and the bottom surface is at the second end of the elongated part [Fig.4 and associated text]
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over MOELLER in view of Karamanos et al., US20170045255 (“KARAMANOS”).
Re claim 15, MOELLER discloses the probe of claim 1, as shown above.
MOELLER fails to explicitly disclose an air pressure measurement system for measuring pressure difference on different sides of an air damper having at least one damper blade, the system comprising: at least two of the measurement probe according to claim 1 arranged to be fastened on different sides of the air damper so that the wall of each of the at least two of the measurement probe is between a measurement point and the at least one damper blade
However, KARAMANOS, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches an air pressure measurement system for measuring pressure difference on different sides of an air damper having at least one damper blade, the system comprising: at least two measurement probes arranged to be fastened on different sides of an air damper so that a wall of each of the at least two of the measurement probe is between a measurement point and the at least one damper blade [0023]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify MOELLER to include particular design of KARAMANOS to measure the pressure difference on different sides of a damper in an air duct. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide measurement and regulation of air flows with precision, cost effectiveness, superior acoustics, and less energy expenditure that current systems (KARAMANOS at [0123]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, KARAMANOS merely teaches that it is well-known to use multiple probes to measure air flow in a duct on either side of a damper. Since both MOELLER and KARAMANOS disclose similar air flow measurement systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
OTHER RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20240068850, Fentzlaff et al. – airflow sensor system utilizing multiple pressure sensors to make measurements based on the damper position
US20210190657, Greist et al. – pressure probe for measuring airflow in an HVAC system
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855