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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A (Claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 27 May 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 May 2026.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
As to claim 7: The term “close to” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In particular, although Applicant’s as-filed specification notes in ¶ 40 that “outlet 218 be positioned as close to the wall of the ductwork as possible”, there does not appear to be any objective measure of what constitutes an outlet that would be construed by the skilled artisan as “close” to the wall of the ductwork.
Because the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained at this time because there is no objective measurement or scale of an outlet that is considered to be “close to” a wall of the passage, such as presently recited in claim 7, a proper and complete prior art search for the claimed subject matter of the instant claim could not be carried out at this time. The examiner recommends explaining in remarks how Applicant believes the scope of the claim to be definite, preferably by providing evidence from Applicant’s disclosure, and/or amending the claim such as to obviate the above noted issue. The examiner further notes that in the event that Applicant’s remarks and/or amendment overcomes the current rejection, a prior art search for the claimed subject matter of claim 7 would be conducted at that time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgamott et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0045389 A1 (hereafter Wolgamott) in view of Riggs US Pat 3,765,247 (hereafter Riggs).
As to claim 1: Wolgamott teaches a fluid processing system for treating a fluid (see fig. 3 and ¶ 33), comprising:
a passage (20; see fig. 3) through which a process fluid stream is directed in a process flow direction (see ¶ 37), the process fluid stream containing fluid to be processed (see ¶ 37); and
a sensing unit (see fig. 3 and ¶ 37) disposed at least partially in the process fluid stream (see fig. 3) for sensing a parameter relevant to the processing (see ¶ 37), the sensing unit comprising:
a sensor (22; see ¶ 37) having a sensing section for contact with the fluid from the process fluid stream to measure the parameter in the process fluid stream (see fig. 3 and ¶ 37; the portion of sensor 22 in the stream in contact therewith is considered to be a sensing section); and
a manifold (30; see fig. 3 and ¶ 37) in communication with the sensing section of the sensor (see ¶ 37).
Wolgamott does not explicitly teach:
the manifold comprised of at least one trunk section and plural branch sections in fluid communication with the at least one trunk section and plural branch sections in fluid communication with the at least one trunk section, each of the branch sections having a branch inlet opening for receiving fluid from the process fluid stream, each of the branch inlet openings being disposed at a different location across the process fluid stream, wherein
fluid in the process fluid stream is directed into each of the branch inlet openings, through the branch sections, into the trunk section where the fluid is presented to the sensing section of the sensor, and then back into the process fluid stream.
However, Riggs teaches:
a manifold (see fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 53-55) comprised of at least one trunk section (the portion of pipe connected to each of inlet pipes 21-24 as depicted in fig. 1) and plural branch sections (21-24; see fig. 1) in fluid communication with the at least one trunk section (see fig. 1), each of the branch sections (21-24) having a branch inlet opening (see fig. 1) for receiving fluid from a process fluid stream (see col. 2, lines 53-61), wherein
fluid in the process fluid stream is directed into each of the branch inlet openings, through the branch sections, into the trunk section where the fluid is presented to a sensing section (33; see fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 53-61 and col. 3, lines 4-5) of the sensor, and then back into the process fluid stream (see col. 4, lines 8-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolgamott’s manifold such that it is comprised of at least one trunk section and plural branch sections in fluid communication with the at least one trunk section and plural branch sections in fluid communication with the at least one trunk section, each of the branch sections having a branch inlet opening for receiving fluid from the process fluid stream, each of the branch inlet openings being disposed at a different location across the process fluid stream, wherein fluid in the process fluid stream is directed into each of the branch inlet openings, through the branch sections, into the trunk section where the fluid is presented to the sensing section of the sensor, and then back into the process fluid stream because such a manifold is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of rapidly collecting air from a stream for measurement purposes while also collecting a large capacity for said purpose, such as suggested in col. 4, lines 24-37 of Riggs.
As to claim 5: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the trunk section (the portion of pipe connected to each of inlet pipes 21-24 of Riggs as depicted in fig. 1) includes a fluid outlet for discharging the process fluid flowing through the trunk section back into the process fluid stream (see 31 in fig. 1 of Riggs).
As to claim 8: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the plural branch inlet openings (21-24 of Riggs) are disposed at various locations along a cross-section of the passage (see fig. 1 of Riggs in view of fig. 3 of Wolgamott), the cross-section being orthogonal to a general flow direction of the process fluid stream (see fig. 1 of Riggs in view of fig. 3 of Wolgamott).
As to claim 9: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches the system according to claim 8, wherein each of the plural branch inlet openings (21-24 of Riggs) is disposed substantially along a same plane defining the cross-section of the passage (see fig. 1 of Riggs in view of fig. 3 of Wolgamott).
As to claim 10: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein each of the plural branch inlet openings (21-24 of Riggs) is disposed so as to face a general flow direction of the process fluid stream (see fig. 1 of Riggs in view of fig. 1 of Wolgamott).
As to claim 12: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the manifold (see fig. 1 of Riggs and col. 2, lines 53-55) is disposed in the passage (see Wolgamott fig. 3 in view of Riggs fig. 1), and the fluid in the process fluid stream that is directed into each of the branch inlet openings (21-24 of Riggs), through the branch sections, into the trunk section, and back into the process fluid stream never leaves the passage before returning to the process fluid stream (see Wolgamott fig. 3 in view of Riggs fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgamott et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0045389 A1 (hereafter Wolgamott) in view of Riggs US Pat 3,765,247 (hereafter Riggs) as applied above, and further in view of Ohs US Pat 9,574,782 B2 (hereafter Ohs).
As to claim 2: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim, including a sensor (22 of Wolgamott) and a process fluid stream (the fluid flowing through passageway 29 of Wolgamott as disclosed in ¶ 35), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sensor is a humidity sensor and the parameter is the humidity level of the process fluid stream.
However, Ohs teaches a sensor that is a humidity sensor (124; see col. 5, line 55) and the parameter is a humidity level of a process fluid stream (see col. 5, lines 54-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Wolgamott’s sensor to be a humidity sensor and the parameter is the humidity level of the process fluid stream because such a sensor allows one to control a space at a specific humidity set point such as suggested in Ohs col. 5, lines 54-63 and thus can provide a desired less or moist humidity flow to a specified location which thus improves the flexibility of the operation of Wolgamott’s system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgamott et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0045389 A1 (hereafter Wolgamott) in view of Riggs US Pat 3,765,247 (hereafter Riggs) and Ohs US Pat 9,574,782 B2 (hereafter Ohs) as applied above, and further in view of Svitak et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0299212 A1 (hereafter Svitak).
As to claim 3: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs and Ohs teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 2, including a humidity sensor (124 of Ohs; see col. 5, line 55), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the humidity sensor outputs a weighted average humidity value of the process fluid.
However, Svitak teaches a humidity sensor (30; see fig. 2 and ¶ 24) that outputs a weighted average humidity value of a process fluid (see ¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolgamott’s humidity sensor to further output a weighted average humidity value of the process fluid because such a weighted average can approximate long term averages of a humidity value using a number of different measurements taken over an amount of time, such as suggested in ¶ 6 of Svitak. Accordingly, such weighted average can ignore sudden spikes or drops in measurements when only the longer term average of the humidity is important to a user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgamott et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0045389 A1 (hereafter Wolgamott) in view of Riggs US Pat 3,765,247 (hereafter Riggs) and Ohs US Pat 9,574,782 B2 (hereafter Ohs) as applied above, and further in view of Skinner US PG-PUB 2023/0008604 A1 (hereafter Skinner).
As to claim 4: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs and Ohs teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 2, including a process fluid (the fluid flowing through passageway 29 of Wolgamott as disclosed in ¶ 35), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the humidity level is defined by the dew point or frost point of the process fluid.
However, Skinner teaches that a humidity level may be defined by a dew point or frost point in a process fluid (see ¶ 79).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process stream of Wolgamott such that the humidity level is defined by the dew point or frost point because such a dew point may be utilized to determine whether an HVAC system should prioritize cooling or pulling moisture from an air flow stream, such as suggested in ¶ 79 of Skinner, and can thus be useful in a number of enclosed spaces, such as office, industrial, or domestic buildings, such as further noted in ¶ 80 of Skinner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolgamott et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0045389 A1 (hereafter Wolgamott) in view of Riggs US Pat 3,765,247 (hereafter Riggs) as applied above, and further in view of Birkhofer et al. US PG-PUB 2004/0206067 A1 (hereafter Birkhofer).
As to claim 11: Wolgamott as modified by Riggs teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a process flow direction in a process fluid stream (see fig. 3 of Wolgamott regarding the direction of flow indicated by arrow 29), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein plural sensing units are disposed spaced apart with respect to the process flow direction in the process fluid stream.
However, Birkhofer teaches plural sensing units disposed spaced apart with respect to a process flow direction in a process fluid stream (see ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolgamott’s system to include plural sensing units are disposed spaced apart with respect to the process flow direction in the process fluid stream because such a distribution of sensors allows for detection of an entire flow volume such that influences due to uneven distribution can be mitigated, such as suggested in ¶ 65 of Birkhofer, which can thus improve the sensing accuracy of Wolgamott’s system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan wherein the sensor section of the sensor is disposed within the trunk section adjacent the fluid outlet of the trunk section, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claims 1 and 5.
In particular, while Riggs is considered to teach a sensor section of a sensor (33; see fig. 1) and a trunk section (the pipe connecting perpendicularly to the inlets 21-24 as depicted in fig. 1 of Riggs), the sensor section of the sensor is not located within the trunk section adjacent the fluid outlet of said trunk section and there does not appear to be any obvious combination of the cited prior art of record that would render this limitation obvious to the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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 at 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 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights