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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 7/13/2026 and 7/16/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second elongated member" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner respectfully suggests replacing “second elongated member” with -- second elongated hollow member -- in lines 14-15 of claim 1, line 19 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6, 11-13, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 10,222,286 issued to Imai et al. (“Imai”).
As for claim 1, Imai discloses a pressure sensing device (Figs. 4 and 8), comprising:
a first elongated hollow member (“first elongated hollow member” in annotated Fig. 8 below) comprising
a first opening (“first opening” in re-annotated Fig. 8 below) located at a first end of the first elongated hollow member;
a second opening (“second opening” in re-annotated Fig. 8 below) located at a second end opposite to the first end of the elongated hollow member,
wherein the second opening is open to atmosphere and configured to inject an atmospheric flow of air into the first elongated hollow member to diffuse aggressive chemicals and0or particles entering the first elongated hollow member form the first opening (since the second opening has the claimed structure, it is capable of performing the claimed function which describes the intended use of the second opening and the pressure sensing device but does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over Imai); and
a third opening (“third opening” in re- annotated Fig. 8 below) located at between the first and the second end of the first elongated hollow member,
a second elongated hollow member (“second elongated hollow member” in re-annotated Fig. 8 below), the second elongated hollow member being connected to the first elongated hollow member via the third opening (see re-annotated Fig. 8 below), wherein
the first opening being configured to fluidly connect an inside of the second elongated member to an inside of a third hollow member (see re-annotated Fig. 8 below); and
a pressure sensor (20, 22b) being connected to a free end (“free end” in re-annotated Fig. 8 below) of the second elongated member.
PNG
media_image1.png
673
1151
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, the examiner notes that this limitation describes the intended use of the pressure sensing device (i.e. to be used with a third hollow member with the claimed pressure) and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 4, Imai discloses that the first elongated hollow member (“first elongated member”) comprises a first portion (21a) with a first length and a first inner diameter (see Fig. 8) and a second portion (21) with a second length and a second inner diameter (see Fig. 8).
As for claim 5, Imai discloses that the first portion (21a) is located at the first end of the first elongated hollow member (see Fig. 8).
As for claim 6, Imai discloses that the inner diameter of the first portion (21a) is different (see Fig. 8) from the inner diameter of the second portion (21).
As for claim 11, Imai discloses that the pressure sensor (20, 22b) is connected to the free end of the second elongated member (see Fig. 4) and the third opening is configured to open out to external atmospheric pressure (see Fig. 8).
As for claim 12, the examiner notes that this limitations describes the intended use of the pressure sensing device (i.e. to be used with flue) and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 13, Imai discloses method for measuring pressure in a flue, the method comprising: positioning a pressure sensor element outside a flue using a pressure sensing device according to claim 1 (the examine notes that Fig. 4 shows that the pressure sensing device is not positioned near a flue).
As for claim 17, Colvin discloses that the inner diameter of the first portion (21a) is different from the inner diameter of the second portion (21).
As for claim 18, Colvin discloses that the first inner diameter (at 21a) is bigger (see Fig. 8) than the second inner diameter (at 21).
As for claim 20, Colvin discloses that the first elongated hollow member comprises a first portion (21a) with a first length and a first inner diameter and a second portion (21) with a second length and a second inner diameter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 7-10, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,222,286 issued to Imai et al. (“Imai”).
As for claim 2, Imai discloses the pressure sensing device according to claim 1 (see the rejections of claim 1 above) and an aperture (“aperture” in re-annotated Fig. 8 above) through which the second opening is opened to external atmospheric pressure.
Imai does not disclose that the size of the aperture is between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the aperture of Imai to be between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that sizing the aperture between 0.4 mm and 1.2 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Imai’s aperture and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the size disclosed by Imai or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing a passageway for gas.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Imai.
As for claim 7, Imai discloses the pressure sensing device according to claim 6 (see the rejection of claim 6 above).
Imai does not explicitly disclose that the inner diameter of the first portion is between 3 mm and 9 mm.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the inner diameter of the first portion of Imai to be between 3 mm and 9 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that sizing the inner diameter of the first portion between 3 mm and 9 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Imai’s inner diameter and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the size disclosed by Imai or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing a passageway for gas.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Imai.
As for claim 8, Imai discloses the pressure sensing device according to claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above).
Imai does not disclose that the length of the first portion is up to 5000 mm.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the length of the first portion of Imai to be up to 5000 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that sizing length of the first portion up to 5000 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Imai’s length of the first portion and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the size disclosed by Imai or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing a passageway for gas.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Imai.
As for claim 9, Imai discloses the pressure sensing device according to claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above).
Imai does not disclose that the inner diameter of the second portion is approximately 3 mm.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the inner diameter of the second portion of Imai to be approximately 3 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that sizing the inner diameter of the second portion to be approximately 3 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Imai’s inner diameter of the second portion and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the size disclosed by Imai or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing a passageway for gas.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Imai.
As for claim 10, Imai as modified discloses the pressure sensing device according to claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Imai does not disclose that the length of the second portion is not more than 50 mm.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the length of the second portion of Imai to be not more than 50 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that sizing the length of the second portion to be not more than 50 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Imai’s length of the second portion and applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the size disclosed by Imai or the claimed size because both sizes would perform the same function of providing a passageway for gas.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Imai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Imai.
As for claims 15 and 16, the examiner notes that these limitations describe the intended use of the pressure sensing device (i.e. to be used with a third hollow member with the claimed pressure) and does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
As for claim 19, Imai as modified discloses that the first elongated hollow member (“first elongated member”) comprises a first portion (21a) with a first length and a first inner diameter (see Fig. 8) and a second portion (21) with a second length and a second inner diameter (see Fig. 8).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 10,222,286 issued to Imai et al. (“Imai”) in view of EP 3534133 by Schon et al. (“Schon”) and U.S. Patent 10,450,061 issued to Collins (“Collins”).
As for claim 14, Imai discloses the pressure sensing device according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Imai does not disclose a 3D printer that prints a device according to claim 1.
However, Schon discloses a 3D printer that prints a pressure sensing device (Abstract).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the pressure sensing device of Imai by using a 3D printer to print the device as disclosed by Schon in order to allow a complex design of a pressure sensing device to be realized in a simple manner (Schon: see the paragraph beginning “The measuring element receptacle, at which the first fluid terminates …”).
Imai as modified by Schon does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions adapted to cause a 3D printer to print.
However, Collins discloses a computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions adapted to cause a 3D printer to print (col. 11, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the 3D printer of Imai and Schon to be controlled by a computer-readable medium as disclosed by Collins on order to allow the 3D printer to be automatically controlled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Imai does not disclose a second opening that is open to atmosphere because inlet 21a receives an inlet-side tube. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the examiner acknowledges that inlet 21a of Imai is capable of receiving an inlet-side tube, the examiner’s position is that the pressure detecting device 100 of Imai is not required to be permanently connected to a tube. When the pressure detecting device 100 is not connected to a tube, inlet 21a is capable of being open to the atmosphere.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN N OLAMIT whose telephone number is (571)270-1969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (Pacific).
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JUSTIN N OLAMIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights