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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection to Peacock for claim 1, Applicant argues that Peacock does not show anticipation of claim 1 because Peacock uses physical control members to navigate the displayed alpha-numeric keypad and menu.
Per MPEP 2111, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 only requires, “a display for displaying one or more graphical user interfaces having one or more interactive icons that the user can activate,” but claim 1 does not require a touch screen or exclude use of physical controls to select or activate displayed graphical elements. Additionally, there is no special definition in the specification that would preclude this interpretation from being reasonable.
Peacock discloses probe A having display screen 152, an alpha-numeric keypad displayed on screen 152, and a menu through which an operator may enter information regarding a filter being tested or select various features available in the menu. Peacock further discloses cursor directional control members and an enter key that allow the operator to navigate through the displayed keypad and menu and select available features. The fact that the user may activate the displayed features using physical controls does not remove the displayed keypad/menu items from the scope of “interactive icons” under a broad but reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive as to claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 over Peacock is maintained.
Regarding the rejection for claim 2, Applicant argues that while Peacock discloses physical buttons, Peacock doesn’t disclose virtual buttons. Examiner agrees and this rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Tunheim rejection to claim 1, Applicant argues that Tunheim does not expressly disclose a “filter” in the disclosure, nor expressly describes testing a filter in its normal operating position.
Per MPEP 2111, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, intended-use language in an apparatus claim generally does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from prior art structure that is otherwise capable of performing the recited use, and MPEP § 2144 recognizes reliance on established legal principles and ordinary-skill reasoning when the alleged distinction is based on intended use or known capability.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and does not positively recite the filter as a structural component of the claimed apparatus; rather, the recitations “for testing a filter,” “deployed adjacent the filter being tested,” and “in connection with testing the filter” describe the intended use or operating environment of the handheld probe. Tunheim discloses a portable handheld characteristic analyzer configured for onsite, real-time or near real-time detection of hazardous substances or contaminants, including deployment at or near locations where direct detection is desired, and Tunheim further discloses a display/graphical user interface for providing visual information and user interaction.
Furthermore, Tunheim’s discloses that the analyzer can be used around equipment such as computers, which further supports that the analyzer is capable of being positioned adjacent operating equipment having airflow structures such as fan screens, grilles, mesh screens, and/or filters, which are known structures associated with computer cooling arrangements. Therefore, the absence of the word “filter” in Tunheim is not an issue because Applicant’s claimed filter-testing language does not impose a structural limitation beyond an apparatus capable of being deployed adjacent to the object being tested and performing the recited display/interface functions.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Tunheim fails solely because it does not expressly use the term “filter” is unpersuasive as to claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 over Tunheim is maintained.
Additionally to claim 1, Applicant argues that Tunheim does not anticipate the claim because Tunheim’s detection of contaminants near industrial equipment does not necessarily include testing a filter.
Per MPEP 2114, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art, but an apparatus claim reciting an intended use is anticipated where the prior art discloses the claimed structure and that structure is capable of the recited use under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Tunheim discloses a portable handheld analyzer capable of being directed at a sample and positioned near equipment in normal operation, and the cited display/GUI features are structural and functional features of the handheld analyzer itself. The disclosure of use around computers further supports the analyzer’s capability of being used adjacent equipment having airflow-related filter or filter-like structures, without requiring the filter to be expressly named in Tunheim. Thus, Applicant’s inherency argument does not overcome the rejection because the Examiner is not relying on inherency to add a missing structural element, but on the prior art apparatus being capable of the claimed intended use.
Accordingly, Applicant’s inherency argument is unpersuasive as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that Tunheim does not disclose that all activation members on the handheld probe are virtual activation members. This argument is not persuasive.
Tunheim discloses an embodiment in which graphical user interface 324 may be a capacitive touch screen or other electronic visual display. See Tunheim, ¶ [0062]. Tunheim further discloses that the user may interactively communicate with the analyzer through the graphical user interface, including scrolling between screens and displaying compositional or characteristic information. See Tunheim, ¶¶ [0062]-[0065]. In the relied-upon touchscreen embodiment, the user activation members displayed on the screen are virtual or soft activation members, and a physical keyboard is not required because Tunheim states only that the GUI may include a physical input keyboard.
Accordingly, Tunheim discloses an embodiment in which the user-manipulable activation members used to perform operations through the handheld analyzer interface are virtual activation members. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive, and the rejection of claim 2 over Tunheim is maintained.
Regarding the Peacock-Mouradian rejection of claims 3-20, Applicant further argues that Mouradian does not disclose an apparatus for testing a filter because Mouradian is directed to a vapor analysis system and its filters 154-1 and 154-2 are internal vapor-channel filters.
This argument is not persuasive against the Peacock-Mouradian combination. In an obviousness rejection, the references are considered for their combined teachings, and each reference need not independently disclose every limitation. Peacock supplies the filter-testing apparatus, including the handheld probe and base unit for testing a filter in situ, while Mouradian is relied upon for additional user-interface, data-management, erasure, updating, or operational-control teachings. Therefore, whether Mouradian’s internal filters are themselves filters being tested does not defeat the rejection based on Peacock in view of Mouradian.
Applicant further argues that Mouradian’s route-entry database disclosure has nothing to do with the claimed rewind or trim activation member/icon. This argument has been considered, but it does not overcome the rejection. Mouradian was properly relied upon for the broader teaching of user-actuated data management, erasure, updating, or replacement of operational information through a user interface, and Peacock supplies the filter-testing apparatus.
Mouradian is not relied upon as the primary filter-testing apparatus, but for the teaching that a user interface may allow a user to erase, update, replace, or manage operational data. It would have been obvious to apply such user-actuated data-management functionality to Peacock’s filter-testing system to permit removal or disregard of nonrepresentative data during a testing operation, thereby reducing the likelihood that nonrepresentative events would affect the test result.
For claims 4-10 and 16-20, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the particular confirmation, acceptance/decline, timing, predetermined period, deletion, and return-to-scan-mode features. These arguments are not persuasive
The base trim function is properly supported by the combination. Once it would have been obvious to provide a user-actuated trim or data-erasure function in Peacock’s filter-testing system, the claimed confirmation window, user acceptance or decline, timing of the activation, deletion of selected scan data, and automatic return to scan mode represent predictable user-interface and software workflow implementations of that function. Further, the claimed predetermined time intervals are matters of selecting a known sampling or data window, and Peacock discloses 10-second sampling periods in the filter-testing context, supporting that such predetermined intervals were known and would yield predictable results.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the §103 rejection of claims 3-20 over Peacock in view of Mouradian.
Regarding the Tunheim-Mouradian rejection of claims 3-20, Applicant argues that the rejection of claims 3-20 are improper because Tunheim does not disclose a filter and Mouradian does not disclose an apparatus for testing a filter. These arguments are not persuasive.
As discussed above, the claims are directed to an apparatus and method using a handheld probe/analyzer, and the recitations concerning “testing a filter,” deployment adjacent the filter, and operations “in connection with testing the filter” describe the intended use or operating environment of the apparatus. Under MPEP §§ 2111 and 2114, claim language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, and intended-use language generally does not distinguish prior art structure that is otherwise capable of performing the recited use.
Tunheim discloses a portable handheld characteristic analyzer configured for onsite, real-time or near real-time detection of substances or contaminants at or near locations where direct detection is desired. Tunheim’s disclosure of use around equipment such as computers further supports that the analyzer is capable of being deployed adjacent operating equipment having airflow structures such as fan screens, grilles, mesh screens, and filters known to be associated with computer cooling arrangements. Accordingly, the absence of the word “filter” in Tunheim do not make the claims allowable.
Applicant’s argument that Mouradian does not itself disclose a filter-testing apparatus also does not overcome the rejection. In an obviousness rejection, the references are considered for their combined teachings, and each reference need not independently disclose every limitation. Tunheim supplies the handheld analyzer structure and graphical user interface capable of being used in the claimed environment, while Mouradian is relied upon for user-interface and data-management teachings, including user-actuated erasure, updating, replacement, or management of operational information. Thus, Applicant’s assertion that Mouradian’s filters are internal vapor-channel filters does not defeat the rejection because Mouradian is not relied upon as the sole source of the claimed filter-testing environment.
Applicant further argues that Mouradian does not disclose the claimed rewind or trim activation member/icon. This argument is not persuasive to the extent Mouradian is relied upon for the broader teaching of user-actuated data management through a user interface, and Tunheim supplies the handheld analyzer and GUI platform.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a user-actuated trim or data-disregard function in a handheld testing system to remove or disregard nonrepresentative data occurring during a test, thereby reducing the likelihood of an erroneous result caused by a transient nonrepresentative event. It also would have been obvious to implement that function as a virtual or soft activation icon because touchscreen soft buttons and virtual GUI controls were well known substitutes for physical controls in handheld electronic devices and instrumentation, providing predictable advantages such as reduced mechanical components, software reconfigurability, context-specific controls, and improved sealing and cleanability.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4-10 and 16-20 are likewise unpersuasive. The claimed confirmation window, user acceptance or declination, activation-time recording, deletion of selected scan data, predetermined deletion interval, and automatic return to scan mode represent predictable software and graphical-user-interface workflow details for implementing a user-actuated trim function. Therefore, the rejections of claims 3-20 over Tunheim in view of Mouradian is maintained.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by previously cited U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0343461 (Peacock et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Peacock et al. discloses in Figures 1-15, an apparatus for testing a filter comprising a handheld probe (e.g. probe; paragraph [0038]; Figure 1; A) for testing a filter (e.g. test a filter; paragraph [0038]) such that the handheld probe being configured to be deployed adjacent the filter being tested while the filter being tested is located in a normal operating position (e.g. paragraphs [0037],[0038],claim 1); the handheld probe (A) further including a display (152; e.g. display screen; paragraph [0055]) for displaying one or more graphical user interfaces (e.g. alpha-numeric keyboard and operating menu displayed on the display screen; paragraphs [0042],[0060] to [0065]) to a user (e.g. an operator; paragraph [0061]) where each of the one or more graphical user interfaces having one or more interactive icons that the user can activate to perform a predetermined operation (e.g. various features; paragraphs [0060] to [0065]) in connection with testing the filter (see, paragraphs [0037] to [0067]).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by previously cited U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0061449 (Tunheim et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Tunheim et al. discloses in Figures 1-5, an apparatus for testing a filter comprising a handheld probe (300; e.g. handheld characteristic analyzer; paragraphs [0055],[0056]; Figures 3a,3b) for testing a filter (e.g. paragraph [0017] indicates detecting presence of hazardous substance or contaminant escaping from industrial equipment which is suitable for testing filter according to the description in the Instant application) such that the handheld probe being configured to be deployed adjacent the filter being tested while the filter being tested is located in a normal operating position (e.g. paragraph [0017]); the handheld probe further including a display (e.g. LCD display or electronic visual display; paragraph [0062]) for displaying one or more graphical user interfaces 324 (e.g. graphical user interface; paragraph [0062]) to a user (e.g. a user; paragraphs [0062],[0063]) where each of the one or more graphical user interfaces having one or more interactive icons (e.g. input keyboard, interactively scroll between imagining screen; paragraphs [0062],[0063]) that the user can activate to perform a predetermined operation (e.g. various compositional or characteristic of interests by interacting communicating with signal processor; paragraphs [0062]-[0065]; Figures 3A,3B) in connection with testing the filter. (See, paragraphs [0016] to [0097]).
With regards to claim 2, Tunheim et al. further discloses all activation members on the handheld probe which the user can manipulate or activate to perform any operation or function using the handheld probe are virtual activation members. (See, paragraphs [0062]-[0065]).
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.
Claims 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0343461 (Peacock et al.) or U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0061449 (Tunheim et al.) in view of U.S. Patent 7,588,726 (Mouradian et al.).
With regards to claim 3, the references, Peacock et al. or Tunheim et al., do not disclose a first graphical user interface having a rewind or trim interactive activation icon that when activated by the user during a filter scan can erase a predetermined time period of a filter scan performed using the handheld probe to prevent an event that is not indicative of filter efficiency or leakage from resulting in a false failure of a filter being tested.
Mouradian et al. discloses a vapor analysis system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-5, where each of the one or more graphical user interfaces having one or more interactive icons that the user can activate to perform a predetermined operation (e.g. special functions; column 18, lines 9-64; column 19, line 10-62) in connection with testing the filter; a first graphical user interface having a rewind or trim interactive activation icon (e.g. user customized menu pick list such that allow the user to replace/erase/update a current route entry database to a new route entry database to EEPROM; column 22, line 55 to column 23) that when activated by the user during a filter scan can erase a predetermined time period of a filter scan performed using the handheld probe to prevent an event that is not indicative of filter efficiency or leakage from resulting in a false failure of a filter being tested (e.g. column 22, line 55 to column 24, line 25; column 32, lines 6-30; column 24, lines 1-11; column 24, line 55 to column 25, line 10). (See, column 10, line 10 to column 35, line 6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing a first graphical user interface having a rewind or trim interactive activation icon that when activated by the user during a filter scan can erase a predetermined time period of a filter scan performed using the handheld probe to prevent an event that is not indicative of filter efficiency or leakage from resulting in a false failure of a filter being tested as suggested by Mouradian et al. to the system of either Peacock et al. or Tunheim et al. to have the ability to repeat the survey mode for a plurality of route entry during a predetermined sampling period and to significantly reduce the need or requirement of the user where the user can operate such functions remotely. (See, column 22, line 55 to column 23, line 14; column 18, lines 42-49 of Mouradian et al.). Furthermore, touchscreen soft buttons and virtual GUI controls were well known substitutes for physical controls in handheld electronic devices and instrumentation, providing predictable advantages such as reduced mechanical components, software reconfigurability, context-specific controls, and improved sealing and cleanability.
With regards to claims 4-7, Mouradian et al. does not specify such parameter characteristics for the rewind or trim activation as in these claims. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claims are considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities of functionality of data analysis for selecting and organizing data that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
With regards to claims 8 -10, Mouradian et al., modifying either Peacock et al. or Tunheim et al., further discloses the predetermined time period is less than 20% of a time period necessary to perform a complete filter scan of a filter being tested; the predetermined time period is in the range of 5 to 30 seconds; the predetermined time period is 10 seconds. (See, column 24, lines 1-11 indicates 7 seconds or another predetermined time period).
With regards to claim 11, the claim is directed to an apparatus claim and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claims 1-3 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Furthermore, Peacock et al. further discloses a base unit C (e.g. base unit; paragraph [0038]; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 12, Peacock et al. further discloses the one or more user activation members are a virtual activation member or a physical activation member. (See, observed in Figures 1,4).
With regards to claims 13-14, Mouradian et al. further discloses the rewind or trim activation member is a virtual activation member or a physical activation member; the rewind or trim activation member is a physical activation member on the handheld probe or the base unit. (See, observed in Figure 1).
With regards to claim 15, the claim is directed to a method claim and is commensurate in scope with the above apparatus claims 1-3 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. Furthermore, Peacock et al. further discloses a base unit C (e.g. base unit; paragraph [0038]; Figure 6).
With regards to claims 16-17, Mouradian et al. further discloses displaying the rewind or trim activation member as an interactive icon on a graphical user interface on a display of the handheld probe or the base unit; displaying the rewind or trim activation member as an interactive icon on a graphical user interface on the display of the handheld probe. (See, observed in Figure 1).
With regards to claims 18-20, Mouradian et al. does not specify such parameter characteristics for the rewind or trim activation as in these claims. However, to have set such test characteristics as in the claims are considered to have been a matter of choice possibilities of functionality of data analysis for selecting and organizing data that would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
