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. 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. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3 , 5- 8, 10 , and 12-18 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. Claim 1 recites “a closed pressurized unit” and “at least one closed pressurized unit”, it is unclear if these are the same or different units, based on the previous claims both referring to them as (1) they are considered to be the same. Claim s 10-15 recite multiple instances of “ a negative response ” and “ a positive response ” however claim 9 already recites a negative response and a positive response , making it unclear if these are new or different responses. For the purposes of examining they are considered to be different. Claim 16 recites “ the air flow inducer ” , t here is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10, and 17-18 are rejected based on their inherited deficiencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-3 and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category. Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 recite(s) “ analyzing a change or deviation of sound variables within a closed pressurized unit ” and “ compare them to the stored values in the database ” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, for example see page 11 and 13 . Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a s ystem for monitoring ”, “ which system is a system for distribution of gaseous components and comprises; at least one closed pressurized unit, which closed pressurized unit comprises a flow inducer, at least one device having at least one changeable open area , and at least one sound capturing device” , “ a second sound capturing device ” , and “ wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device ” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “ a system monitoring device having a database including stored reference values for sound variables, and values of characteristic variables associated with the gaseous components in the system and/or the changeable open area corresponding to the stored reference values for sound variables ” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “ which system monitoring device is able to receive values of sound variables and characteristic variables ” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Under Step 2 B , evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a s ystem for monitoring ”, “ which system is a system for distribution of gaseous components and comprises; at least one closed pressurized unit, which closed pressurized unit comprises a flow inducer, at least one device having at least one changeable open area , and at least one sound capturing device”, “ a second sound capturing device ” , and “ wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device ” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record) . The elements “ a system monitoring device having a database including stored reference values for sound variables, and values of characteristic variables associated with the gaseous components in the system and/or the changeable open area corresponding to the stored reference values for sound variables ” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) . The elements of “ which system monitoring device is able to receive values of sound variables and characteristic variables ” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)( see prior art of record ). Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are not integrated into a practical application and not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record). Under step 1, claim 9 belongs to a statutory category . Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 9 recite(s) “ analyzing a change or deviation of sound variables in a system ” and “ iv. returning, by the database , a positive response to the system monitoring device in response to the detected sound variables correspond to stored reference values of sound variables and a negative response in response to the detected sound variables deviating from the stored reference values of sound variables in the database ” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, for example see page 11 and 13 . Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a method for monitoring ” and “ the method comprising i. detecting, by the sound capturing device sound variables in the closed pressurized unit ii. emitting, by the sound capturing device, the detected sound variables to the system monitoring device iii. receiving, by the system monitoring device, the detected sound variables and comparing them to the stored reference values of sound variables in the database ” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “ which system comprises: at least one closed pressurized unit which closed pressurized unit comprises a flow inducer at least one device having a changeable open area and at least one sound capturing device ” are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The elements of “ a system monitoring device having a database including stored reference values of sound variables, values of characteristic variables and/or the changeable open area corresponding to the stored reference values of sound variables ” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “a method for monitoring ” and “ the method comprising i. detecting, by the sound capturing device sound variables in the closed pressurized unit ii. emitting, by the sound capturing device, the detected sound variables to the system monitoring device iii. receiving, by the system monitoring device, the detected sound variables and comparing them to the stored reference values of sound variables in the database ” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)( see prior art of record ). The elements of , “ which system comprises: at least one closed pressurized unit which closed pressurized unit comprises a flow inducer at least one device having a changeable open area and at least one sound capturing device ” are considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record) . The elements of “ a system monitoring device having a database including stored reference values of sound variables, values of characteristic variables and/or the changeable open area corresponding to the stored reference values of sound variables ” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) . Claims 10, and 12-13, are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above. Claims 11, 14-15, 17 and 19 are considered to further describe the abstract ideas cited above; and are not integrated into a practical application and not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)( see prior art of record ). Claims 16, 18 are not integrated into a practical application and not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are considered to be generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself per MPEP 2106.05(h) and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) (see prior art of record ). 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. Claim(s) 9 , 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kisakibaru ( US 20200149766 A1 and EP3650773A1 ) . In claim 9, Kisakibaru discloses a method for monitoring and analyzing a change or deviation of sound variables (Par. 11 “ changes in the data on the sound pressure ”) in a system (Fig. 2) , which system comprises: at least one closed pressurized unit (Fig. 2, 10) which closed pressurized unit comprises a flow inducer (Fig. 2, 30) at least one device (Fig. 2, 24) having a changeable open area (Par. 41 “damper”) and at least one sound capturing device (Fig. 2, 26); a system monitoring device (Fig. 2, 70) having a database including stored reference values of sound variables (Par. 44 “ specific frequency that have been extracted ”, “ personal computer ” examiner considers where the specific frequency is retained to be said database) , values of characteristic variables and/or the changeable open area corresponding to the stored reference values of sound variables (Par. 44 “ based on the data on the sound pressure at the specific frequency that have been extracted ”) ; the method comprising i. detecting, by the sound capturing device sound variables in the closed pressurized unit (Par. 44) ii. emitting, by the sound capturing device, the detected sound variables to the system monitoring device (Par. 44) iii. receiving, by the system monitoring device, the detected sound variables and comparing them to the stored reference values of sound variables in the database (Par. 44 “ The extracted data are subject to an inverse Fourier transform to obtain time-domain data on the sound pressure. In this way the data on the sound pressure at the specific frequency can be extracted. The controller 70 also functions as an estimating device to estimate clogging of the filter 20 , i.e., a degree of clogging of it or a need for replacing the filter 20 , based on the data on the sound pressure at the specific frequency that have been extracted ”) and iv. returning, by the database , a positive response to the system monitoring device in response to the detected sound variables correspond to stored reference values of sound variables (Par. 44 “ degree of clogging ”) and a negative response in response to the detected sound variables deviating from the stored reference values of sound variables in the database (Par. 44 “ need for replacing the filter ”) . In claim 11, Kisakibaru further discloses in response to the database returning a positive response in step iv, checking, by the system monitoring unit the value of the changeable open area, and storing the value in the database together with the values of the detected sound variables (Par. 44). In claim 19, Kisakibaru further discloses indicating a negative response by sending a signal to a user, a building management system, a computer, a screen or other device capable of receiving the signal (Par. 44 “computer”) to provide a notification about a deviation in the sound variables of the system ( Par. 44 “computer” Par. 57 “ The attenuation of the transmitted sound pressure is calculated as the difference between the transmitted sound pressures ” ) . 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) 1- 3, 5- 8, 10 , 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisakibaru ( US 20200149766 A1 ) in view of Brown ( US 20050011278 A1 ) . In claim 1, Kisakibaru discloses a s ystem for monitoring and analyzing (Fig. 2 ) a change or deviation of sound variables (Par. 11 “ changes in the data on the sound pressure ”) within a closed pressurized unit (Fig. 2 , 10) , which system is a system for distribution of gaseous components (see title “air conditioner”) and comprises; at least one closed pressurized unit (Fig. 2 , 10) , which closed pressurized unit comprises a flow inducer (Fig. 2 , 30) , at least one device (Fig. 2 , 24) having at least one changeable open area (Par. 41 “damper”) , and at least one sound capturing device (Fig. 2 , 26) ; a system monitoring device (Fig. 2, 70) having a database including stored reference values for sound variables (Par. 44 “ specific frequency that have been extracted ” , “ personal computer ” examiner considers where the specific frequency is retained to be said database) , and values of characteristic variables associated with the gaseous components in the system and/or the changeable open area corresponding to the stored reference values for sound variables (Par. 44 “ based on the data on the sound pressure at the specific frequency that have been extracted ”) , which system monitoring device is able to receive values of sound variables and characteristic variables and compare them to the stored values in the database ( Par. 44 “ The extracted data are subject to an inverse Fourier transform to obtain time-domain data on the sound pressure. In this way the data on the sound pressure at the specific frequency can be extracted. The controller 70 also functions as an estimating device to estimate clogging of the filter 20 , i.e., a degree of clogging of it or a need for replacing the filter 20 , based on the data on the sound pressure at the specific frequency that have been extracted ” ) ; a second sound capturing device, (Fig. 6, 28; Fig. 4 30/50; Par. 49 “ sound pressure 50 that has been generated by the blower 30 ” Par. 53 “ buzzer 28 generates a sound pressure at a specific frequency ”) . Kisakibaru does not explicitly disclose a second sound capturing device, wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device (emphasis added) . Brown teaches at least one device (Fig. 7A) having at least one changeable open area ( Fig. 7A, 704 ), and at least one sound capturing device (Fig. 7A, P2) a second sound capturing device ( Fig. 7A, P3, 722, Par. 84 “ sense acoustic frequencies ”) , wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device (See Fig. 7A) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have a second sound capturing device, wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device as taught by Brown in Kisakibaru in order to improve sensitivity (Brown Par. 66) thus leading to a more thorough and accurate system. In claim 2, Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the flow inducer and the at least one sound capturing device are provided on different sides of the at least one device (See Fig 2). In claim 3, Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the system further comprises at least one sound generating device configured to emit sounds with different frequencies (see claim 6) . In claim 5, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 3. Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the system comprises two sound generating devices (Fig. 6, 28; Fig. 4 30/50; Par. 49 “ sound pressure 50 that has been generated by the blower 30 ” Par. 53 “ buzzer 28 generates a sound pressure at a specific frequency ”) ; wherein a first sound generating device and a second sound generating device (see above) are provided on different sides of the at least one device (see Fig. 6, buzzer and blower are on opposite sides) . In claim 6, Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the at least one changeable open area of the at least one device is changed mechanically (Par. 41 examiner considers the damper comprising a blade to dampen mechanically). In claim 7, Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the system comprises at least two devices each having at least one changeable open area (Par. 24). In claim 8, Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the gaseous component is air (Par. 2, “air”). In claim 10, Kisakibaru does not explicitly discloses v. in response to the database returning a negative response in step iv, analyzing, by the system monitoring device in response to the changeable open area having changed, and returning a positive response in response to the changeable open area having changed and a negative response in response to the changeable open area not having changed. Brown teaches v. in response to the database returning a negative response in step iv, analyzing, by the system monitoring device in response to the changeable open area having changed, and returning a positive response in response to the changeable open area having changed and a negative response in response to the changeable open area not having changed (Par. 80, Fig. 7C, 758-770) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have v. in response to the database returning a negative response in step iv, analyzing, by the system monitoring device in response to the changeable open area having changed, and returning a positive response in response to the changeable open area having changed and a negative response in response to the changeable open area not having changed as taught by Brown in Kisakibaru in order to identify c avitation of the device (Brown Par. 80) thus leading to a more thorough and accurate system. In claim 12, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 10. Kisakibaru further discloses checking, by the system monitoring unit, whether any of the characteristic variables in the unit have changed (Par. 44). In claim 13, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 10. Kisakibaru further discloses vi. in response to the database returning a negative response in step iv, analyzing whether any characteristic variables have changed or been altered (Par. 44) , and returning a positive response to the system monitoring unit in response to any of the characteristic variables having changed or been altered and a negative response in response to none of the characteristic variables having changed or been altered (Par. 44). In claim 14, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 13. Kisakibaru further discloses in response to a positive response being returned from the database checking, by the system monitoring unit, the value of the altered characteristic variables and storing them together with the value of the detected sound variables and the value of the changeable open area in the database (Par. 44). In claim 15, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 13. Kisakibaru further discloses in response to a negative response being returned from the database, performing, by the system monitoring unit, o ne of the following steps: vii. checking the value of the altered sound variables and s toring them in the database together with a value for the changeable open area and the characteristic variables (Par. 44) ; or viii. checking the value of the altered sound variables and sending a signal to a user, a system monitor, a building management system, a screen or another device capable of receiving the signal that there is a deviation and enabling manually storing of the altered sound variables together with a reason for the deviation (Par. 44 “computer”) . In claim 16, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 15. Kisakibaru further discloses a first sound generating device (Fig. 28); wherein the system monitoring unit performs the following step subsequent to step viii: ix. analyzing a reason for the deviation by generating a sound using the first sound generating device detecting the sound in the sound capturing device and storing the value of the characteristic variables (Par. 44, 53, and 55) , the changeable open area and the sound variables in the database together with a reason for the deviation (Par. 44, 53, and 55) . Kisakibaru does not explicitly disclose wherein the system further comprises a first sound generating device between the air flow inducer and the changeable open area . Brown teaches a first sound generating device ( Fig. 3A, 316 ) between the flow inducer and the changeable open area . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have wherein the system further comprises a first sound generating device between the air flow inducer and the changeable open area as taught by Brown in Kisakibaru in order to identify c avitation of the device (Brown Par. 80) thus leading to a more thorough and accurate system. In claim 17, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 16. Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the system monitoring unit performs the following step: x. analyzing the change of sound variables before and after the at least one changeable open area (Par. 44-45, 53, and 55), calculating the difference in sound variables between the first sound capturing device and the second sound capturing device and automatically storing the value of the sound variables (Par. 44) , the characteristic variables and the changeable open area and in the database together with the reason for the deviation (Par. 44-45, 53, and 55) . In claim 18, Kisakibaru in view of Brown disclose all of claim 17. Kisakibaru further discloses wherein the system further comprises a second sound generating device (Fig. 6, 28; Fig. 4 30/50; Par. 49 “ sound pressure 50 that has been generated by the blower 30 ” Par. 53 “ buzzer 28 generates a sound pressure at a specific frequency ”) further comprising xi. generating a sound in the first sound generating device generating (Par. 45, 49 “ measure the sound pressure when no dust accumulates in the filter 20 , the sound pressure at the initial stage of the operation is measured ” ) a second sound in the second sound generating device (Par. 53) , and comparing the sound in the first sound capturing device and the second sound capturing device ( Par. 45, 51 Fig. 5 ) . Kisakibaru does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second sound generating devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device (emphasis added). Brown teaches at least one device (Fig. 7A) having at least one changeable open area (Fig. 7A, 704), and at least one sound capturing device (Fig. 7A, P2) a second sound capturing device ( Fig. 7A, P3, 722, Par. 84 “ sense acoustic frequencies ”) , wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device (See Fig. 7A) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have a second sound capturing device, wherein the first and second sound capturing devices are provided on different sides of the at least one device as taught by Brown in Kisakibaru in order to improve sensitivity (Brown Par. 66) thus leading to a more thorough and accurate system. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 20200256578 A1 , AIR FILTER CONDITION SENSING ; US 20180306755 A1 GENERATION AND UTILIZATION OF PIPE-SPECIFIC SOUND ATTENUATION ; US 20170205376 A1 DIAGNOSTIC DEVICE, DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEM, DIAGNOSTIC METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)431-0689 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shelby Turner can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6334 . 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. /B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857