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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2023 and 12/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 24-26, 28, 31, 38, 39, 41, and 42 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 24 recites “at least one undercut” in line 2. It is not clear if this is the same as the undercut introduced in claim 22.
Claim 25 recites “at least one projection” in line 2. It is not clear if this is the same as the projection introduced in claim 24.
Claim 26 recites “at least one projection” in line 2. It is not clear if this is the same as the projection introduced in claim 24.
Claim 28 recites “a fourth inlet opening” in line 2. It is not clear how many inlet openings are required by claim 28 because claim 28 depends from claim 22, which only lists a first inlet opening and a second inlet opening.
Claim 31 recites “the inlet openings and/or the deflecting wall are invariant in relation to rotations by angles which are 360 degrees divided by the number of inlet openings or an integer multiple thereof.” It is not clear what is being rotated for the “rotations by angles which are…” in the claim. It is assumed that claim 31 is meant to indicate that the inlet openings are evenly spaced around the intake chamber and are identical to one another, but the claim must be amended for clarity.
Claims 38, 39, 41, and 42 recite “the further connector.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The further connector is introduced in claim 33, but claims 38, 39, 41, and 42 all depend from claim 22. It is noted that claim 34 also recites “the further connector” but depends from claim 33 and thus the term has proper antecedent basis.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 recites that the undercut is formed on the inside of at least one of the inlet openings, which is exactly what is recited in claim 22, line 12, and thus claim 23 does not further limit claim 22. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 22-26, 29-31, 36, and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramos et al. (DE 102018208314, hereinafter Ramos, provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 22, Ramos discloses an intake chamber for an operating medium pump for sucking in operating medium stored in an operating medium vessel of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a housing (figure 3, chamber 100) comprising:
a lower side (at wall 151) configured to abut against a bottom of the operating medium vessel (wall 151 would be fully capable of abutting against any structure), and
an upper side (at wall 141) in which at least one connector (section 170) for a line of the operating medium pump is formed, wherein
a first inlet opening (item 120) and a second inlet opening (item 130) for inlet of operating medium to the connector are formed laterally in the housing (see figure 3),
a deflecting wall (elements 146 and 156) is arranged between each inlet opening and each connector in the housing, and
an undercut (in upper left and lower right corners of chamber 100) is formed on the inside of at least one inlet opening.
Regarding claim 23, Ramos discloses the undercut (figure 3, in upper left and lower right corners of chamber 100) is formed on the inside of at least one of the inlet openings (items 120 and 130).
Regarding claim 24, Ramos discloses at least one undercut is formed by a projection in the housing (figure 3, upper left and lower right corners of the chamber 100 are considered to be projections of the housing), wherein the projection directly adjoins the inlet opening (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 25, Ramos discloses at least one projection is oriented in a plane with the inlet opening (figure 3, upper left and lower right corners of the chamber 100 are considered to be projections of the housing that are in a plane with the openings from item 120 and 130 into the chamber 100).
Regarding claim 26, Ramos discloses the at least one projection assumes an angle of at least 45 degrees or an angle of at most 90 degrees with respect to a directly adjoining portion of the housing (figure 3, upper left and lower right corners of the chamber 100 are considered to be projections of the housing and are set at the recited angles). It is noted that claim 26 does not require that the angle be in the range of 45 to 90 degrees, as the use of “or” in the claim means that any angle can be used (i.e. an angle of at least 45 degrees or at most 90 degrees would include any angle from 0 to 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 29, Ramos discloses the inlet openings (figure 3, items 120 and 130) are formed in an elongate manner on side surfaces of the housing (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 30, Ramos discloses the inlet openings (figure 3, items 120 and 130) have identical angular spacings to respective peripherally adjacent inlet openings (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 31, Ramos discloses the inlet openings (figure 3, items 120 and 130) and/or the deflecting wall (elements 146 and 156) are invariant in relation to rotations by angles which are 360 degrees divided by the number of inlet openings or an integer multiple thereof (see figure 3, inlet openings and deflecting walls are spaced at 180 degrees and are identical to each other).
Regarding claim 36, Ramos discloses a flow control structure (figure 3, sections 144 and 154):
is arranged at the inlet openings (items 120 and 130), is arranged at the outside in relation to the respective deflecting wall (elements 146 and 156), and extends along a respective line (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 38, Ramos discloses the connector (figure 3, section 170) is in the form of an opening through which a line is plugged (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 39, Ramos discloses the connector (figure 3, section 170) is in the form of a line protruding into the housing (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 40, Ramos discloses the lower side of the housing lies in a plane (see lower side of chamber 100 in figure 3).
Regarding claim 41, Ramos discloses the intake chamber is completely closed (see upper side of chamber 100 in figure 3) on the upper side outside of the connector (section 170).
Regarding claim 42, Ramos discloses suction jet pump or operating medium pump, comprising: an electrical pump (paragraph 0001); and the intake chamber according to claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above), wherein the connector or further connector of the intake chamber is fluidically connected to the electrical pump (paragraph 0028).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27, 28, 32-35, and 37 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.
Claims 27 and 28 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite additional inlet openings in positions that would not reasonably be added to Ramos.
Claim 32 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites specific structure of a channel formed and shaped in a way not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 33 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a further connector not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 37 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites specific structure of the flow control structure not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art discloses various intake chambers for mixing and pumping units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights