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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 13-23 are pending. Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-9, 13, and 16-23 are presently examined.
Applicant’s amendments necessitate a new claim objection.
Applicant’s amendments partially overcome rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive regarding each prior art rejection.
Examiner’s Comment
Applicant appears to use the term “foil” to refer to a thin layer of material; thus, the present interpretation of the term “foil” is not limited to being defined as a thin sheet of metal.
In light of Applicant’s amendment, claim construction is understood such that each recitation of “exhibits” in the Specification is equivalent to the term “comprises.”
Claim 22 is marked as “Currently Amended” in the claim set dated June 16, 2026; however, no amendments appear to have been made. Examiner requests clarification as to whether claim 22 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 16, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 with respect to the rejection to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments do not address key issues regarding several limitations of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), nor does Applicant make substantive argument aside from alleging that the amended claims are not indefinite.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8, and 14-20 are allowable. The restriction requirement between Group I (claims 1-9, 13, and 16-23), as set forth in the Office action mailed on May 23, 2024, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of claims 14 and 15 is fully withdrawn. Claims 14 and 15 are directed to inventions no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claims require all limitations of an allowable claim. In the present case, each of independent claims 1, 14, and 15 recite “an observation injection-molded body injected onto the at least one foil layer,” and “injection of an observation injection-molded body onto the foil body,” respectively. Each of these limitations encompass allowable subject matter. See present Office Action, section “Allowable Subject Matter.”
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprises second gas constituent foil layer” should read as “comprises a second gas constituent foil layer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23 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.
Re. Claims 9 and 22: Claim 9 recites “the at least one foil layer comprises a second gas constituent foil layer for capturing a second gas constituent differing from the first gas constituent one, wherein the second gas constituent foil layer comprises a photoluminescent layer with at least one luminophore accommodated therein.” This limitation presents several issues:
The phrase “a second gas constituent foil layer” is unclear because there is no “first gas constituent foil layer” defined in claim 1; therefore, the number of gas constituent foil layers required by the claim is unclear.
The phrase “differing from the first gas constituent one” is unclear because “the first gas constituent one” lacks antecedent basis, particularly since it is unclear whether a first gas constituent foil layer is recited previously. See paragraph above. Even if “the first gas constituent one” is understood as “the first gas constituent foil layer,” antecedent basis is still not clearly established since independent claim 1 recites “at least one gas constituent,” which is open-ended to be interpreted as one or more gas constituents [emphasis added]. The wording “differing from the first one” identifies an alternative to what is recited potentially as a plurality of gas constituents in independent claim 1. The phrase is further unclear because there are multiple subjects to which the phrase could be modifying; it is unclear whether “differing from the first one” intends to state that 1) a second gas constituent foil layer is different from a first one or 2) a second gas constituent differs from a first one.
Claim 22 is also indefinite due to dependency upon claim 9.
Re. Claim 13: Claim 13 recites “wherein at at least one longitudinal end of the housing, a connector formation is arranged at each which is configured for connecting a hose and/or pipe line” [emphasis added]. The term “each,” indicates the claim requires two positively claimed longitudinal ends. However, since claim 13 also recites “at least one longitudinal end of the housing,” it appears that claim construction is also open to defining only one longitudinal end of the housing. It is unclear how many longitudinal ends of the housing possess a connector formation. If the claim is intended to place a connector formation at each longitudinal end, Examiner recommends amendment to reflect such a concept rather than using the phrase “at least one longitudinal end.”
Re. Claim 21: Claim 21 recites “a second gas constituent foil layer.” No “first gas constituent wall component” is recited in claim 8 or claim 1. Thus, it is unclear how many gas constituent observation wall components are required by the claim, similar to the rejection of claim 9.
Claim 21 recites “the second gas constituent foil layer.” This term does not possess proper antecedent basis in claim 8 or claim 1.
Re. Claim 23: Claim 23 recites “wherein the at least one foil layer comprises second gas constituent foil layer… differing from the first one a photoluminescent layer with at least one luminophore accommodated therein.” This limitation possesses multiple issues of indefiniteness:
The identified limitation above is grammatically incorrect at “the first one a photoluminescent layer.”
Claim 23 recites “second gas constituent foil layer;” no “first gas constituent foil layer” is recited in claims 7 or 1; thus, it is unclear how many gas constituent foil layers are required by the claim.
The limitation “differing from the first one” is unclear because it is unclear what element “the first one” is intending to refer to. Should it refer to a first gas constituent foil layer, then the same antecedent basis issue as in the rejection of claim 9 applies. Similarly to the rejection of claim 9, the recitation of “differing from the first one” is further unclear because independent claim 1 recites “at least one gas constituent,” which is open-ended to be interpreted as one or more gas constituents [emphasis added]. The wording “differing from the first one” identifies an alternative to what is recited potentially as a plurality of gas constituents in independent claim 1. The phrase is further unclear because there are multiple subjects to which the phrase could be modifying; it is unclear whether “differing from the first one” intends to state that 1) a second gas constituent foil layer is different from a first one or 2) a second gas constituent differs from a first one.
Claim 23 recites “with at least one luminophore accommodated therein;” it is unclear what prior element this phrase is modifying, particularly in light of the grammatical errors present in the identified limitation of claim 23 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, and 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive that the method of manufacturing the window in Braig does not recite injecting molding onto a thin film. No other prior arts of record disclose such a concept.
Examiner notes that, due to the multiple issues of indefiniteness found in claims 9, 13, 21, 22, and 23, a decision of allowability cannot be reached.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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 XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights