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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 9-11 are 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.
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 1, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0068962) and Roen (US Pub No. 2019/0309972).
Regarding claim 1, Zambon teaches a system for monitoring a fluid filter of a fluid handling apparatus (See abstract and [0140]), the system comprising:
at least one fluid filter installed in the fluid handling apparatus (See [0140]);
a sensor arrangement comprising a first sensor assembly configured and arranged to monitor a parameter associated with a condition of the at least one fluid filter (See [0009] and [0187]), and
a communication module configured to transmit condition data related to the parameter monitored by the first sensor assembly to a processor at a different location to the fluid
handling apparatus (See [0075] and [0132]),
wherein the processor is configured to analyze the condition data over a
predetermined period to determine an expected change in fluid filter condition; and wherein
the processor is configured to compare the expected change in fluid filter condition with the
condition data, and to provide an output when the condition data differs from the expected
change in fluid filter condition by a predetermined amount (See [0157], “The system can also take various actions based on the actual filter condition values observed. For example, in various embodiments, the control circuit can be configured to send information regarding differences between expected filter condition values and actual filter condition values to a fleet operator or issue a notification regarding the same.” Fig. 5 and [0160]-[0164] teach that the filter is monitored over a time period and the results are compared to an expected result over a predetermined time period.).
Zambon does not explicitly teach that the communication module is a telemetry communication module.
Roen teaches a telemetry communication module (See [0032] and [0075]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Roen’s teachings for a low-cost communication method (Roen, [0026]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 12, Zambon teaches the output is an alert or a notification (See [0157]).
Regarding claim 13, Zambon teaches the processor is configured to produce a different alert or notification depending on a value of the predetermined amount (See [0196]).
Regarding claim 14, Zambon teaches an output device in communication with the processor, wherein the output device is configured to indicate the alert or notification to the operator, optionally wherein the output device is an audio and/or display device (See [0196]).
Regarding claim 16, Zambon does not teach he first sensor assembly comprises at least one fluid quality sensor configured to monitor fluid quality downstream of the fluid filter.
Roen teaches he first sensor assembly comprises at least one fluid quality sensor configured to monitor fluid quality downstream of the fluid filter (See [0011] and [0077]).
Regarding claim 17, Zambon does not teach the at least one fluid quality sensor is configured to monitor at least one of: particulates, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, temperature, and/or humidity.
Roen teaches the at least one fluid quality sensor is configured to monitor at least one of: particulates, carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds, temperature, and/or humidity (See [0012]).
Regarding claim 19, Zambon teaches a second fluid filter, and wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a second sensor assembly configured to monitor a parameter associated with a condition of the second fluid filter (See [0140] which teaches a system for monitoring multiple filters in a vehicle.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon and Roen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kenley et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0126430).
Regarding claim 2, Zambon does not teach the processor is configured to determine a flow rate of fluid flow through the fluid filter based on the condition data related to the parameter monitored by the first sensor assembly.
Gillette teaches to determine a flow rate of fluid flow through the fluid filter based on the condition data related to the parameter monitored by a sensor (See [0009], [0072], and [0115]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Gillete’s flow rate teachings increase the filter’s effectiveness and lifespan. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon and Roen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuhns (US Pub No. 2018/0185775).
Regarding claim 7, Zambon does not teach the first sensor assembly comprises a first dynamic pressure sensor located upstream of the fluid filter, and a second dynamic pressure sensor located downstream of the fluid filter, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the pressure differential across the fluid filter based on the first and second dynamic pressures.
Kuhns teaches the first sensor assembly comprises a first dynamic pressure sensor located upstream of the fluid filter, and a second dynamic pressure sensor located downstream of the fluid filter, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the pressure differential across the fluid filter based on the first and second dynamic pressures (See abstract and [0007]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Kuhn’s teachings for an easily implemented and accurate measurement of filter performance. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon and Roen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cornell (US Pub No. 2015/0059583).
Regarding claim 8, Zambon does not teach the output is configured to indicate a blocked condition of the fluid filter when the condition data differs from the expected change in fluid filter condition by a first predetermined amount.
Cornell teaches the output is configured to indicate a blocked condition of the fluid filter when the condition data differs from the expected change in fluid filter condition by a first predetermined amount (See abstract and [0029] teaches a notifying, based on sensor data, when a saturation/blockage level for the particular filter is reached.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Cornell’s teachings to better ensure the filter is properly working. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon and Roen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hase (US Pub No. 2018/0059175).
Regarding claim 15, Zambon does not teach to transmit condition data related to the parameter from the first sensor assembly to the processor using a radio connection to a gateway hub.
Hase teaches to transmit condition data related to the parameter from the first sensor assembly to the processor using a radio connection to a gateway hub (See claim 18 and [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Hase’s teachings to better ensure reliable data communication. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon and Roen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eberle et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0338954).
Regarding claim 18, Zambon does not teach a mounting arrangement configured to mount the sensor arrangement to the at least one fluid filter, and wherein the mounting arrangement comprising at least one duct connection point.
Eberle teaches a mounting arrangement configured to mount the sensor arrangement to the at least one fluid filter, and wherein the mounting arrangement comprising at least one duct connection point (See [0024]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Eberle’s teachings to ensure that the fluid “advantageously permeate the housing or a housing part, respectively, of the housing, in particularly completely” (Eberle [0024]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zambon and Roen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huggins (US Pub No. 2019/0145663).
Regarding claim 20, Zambon a battery configured to power the sensor (See [0195]) but does not teach that the processor is configured to monitor a level of charge of the battery and produce an output when the level of charge of the battery drops below a predetermined threshold.
Huggins teaches the processor is configured to monitor a level of charge of the battery and produce an output when the level of charge of the battery drops below a predetermined threshold (See [0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Zambon’s device to include Huggins’s teachings to better ensure proper working order. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686