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
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 16, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-8 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, line 5, the recitation “ate least one supply line” should read –[[ate]]at least one supply line--.
In claim 5, line 3, the recitation “a pressure sensor” should read –[[a]]the pressure sensor--.
In claim 6, lines 6 and 9, both recitations of “the electrodes” should read –the at least two electrodes--.
In claim 7, line 2, the recitation “a valve” should read –[[a]]the valve--.
In claim 8, line 2, the recitation “a valve” should read –[[a]]the valve--.
In claim 12, line 2, the recitation “a valve” should read –[[a]]the valve--.
In claim 12, lines 2-3, the recitation “the elastic element” should read –the additional elastic element--.
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 1, 3-10 and 15 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 1 lacks a transitional phrase, and the claim is unclear as to where the scope of the claim begins. Although the use of a transitional phrase is not required, the use of a transitional phrase more definitively defines what element(s) is/are included in or excluded from the scope of the claim. In the present case, the claim is unclear as what elements of the claim are being claimed as part of the fluid component and what elements are merely accessory thereto.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the ate least one supply line” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the ate least one supply line” in claim 3, line 5, should read –at least one supply line--.
Claims 4-10 and 15 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US10315548 (“Kerler”).
Regarding claim 1, Kerler discloses (see figs. 1-3) a fluid component (1) with the function of a pressure sensor and/or valve (see figs. 1-3), at least one actuator (“4”) accommodated in a fluid-tight or non-fluid-tight housing (mainly defined by 9 and/or 10) of the fluid component,
wherein the fluid component is arranged on a circuit board (5),
wherein each of the at least one actuator has at least two electrodes (“on the two sides of which there is arranged in each case one electrically conductive layer, for example a graphite layer”; see specification col. 2, lines 13-19, and see also specification col. 4, lines 27-33) and at least one section having an electroactive polymer (see specification col. 2, lines 13-19, and col. 4, lines 27-33) arranged between the at least two electrodes, or a plurality of sections each having an electroactive polymer, with the plurality of sections layered on top of one another.
With regards to the recitation "for a fluid-conducting system (1) of a vehicle comfort system", a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the prior art comprises the structure required by the claim to perform the intended use, it is capable of performing the intended use and meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Kerler discloses a vehicle seat comfort system (comprised at least partially by valve 1, compressed-air supply 2 and cushion 3) having a fluid-conducting system, the fluid-conducting system comprising:
at least one fluid component (1) arranged on a circuit board (5), wherein the at least one fluid component functions as a pressure sensor and/or valve for the fluid-conducting system; and
at least one actuator (4) accommodated in a fluid-tight or non-fluid-tight housing (mainly defined by 9 and/or 10) of the at least one fluid component, wherein each of the at least one actuator has at least two electrodes (“on the two sides of which there is arranged in each case one electrically conductive layer, for example a graphite layer”; see specification col. 2, lines 13-19, and see also specification col. 4, lines 27-33) and at least one section having an electroactive polymer (see specification col. 2, lines 13-19, and col. 4, lines 27-33) arranged between the at least two electrodes, or a plurality of sections each having an electroactive polymer, with the plurality of sections layered on top of one another.
Regarding claim 3, Kerler discloses the fluid-conducting system (see figs. 1-3) comprises a fluid pump (compressor of compressed-air supply 2; see specification col. 3, lines 58-61) which feeds a fluid line (line connecting compressed-air supply 2 to inlet 901 in fig. 1, inlet 13 in fig. 2, or to inlet 6 in fig. 3) with fluid, wherein the fluid line is fluidically connected to one or a plurality of fluid actuator(s) (cushion 3) via the ate least one supply line (line connecting cushion 3 to port 6 according to fig. 1, port 11 according to fig. 2, or port 6’ according to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kerler discloses, wherein, in at least one supply line (line connecting cushion 3 to port 6 according to fig. 1, port 11 according to in fig. 2, or port 6’ according to fig. 3), the at least one fluid component (1) or a further fluid component comprises the function of the valve (see figs. 1-3) for opening and closing a flow path (flow path between compressed-air supply 2 to cushion 3) through the at least one supply line, wherein the vehicle comfort system has a voltage supply (voltage supply which supplies voltage to conductive top and bottom sides of dielectric elastomer 4; see specification col. 4, lines 34-39) which can apply a predetermined or predeterminable voltage (voltage sufficient to cause actuator 4 to deflect away from and/or return to contacting seat 7) between the electrodes (“on the two sides of which there is arranged in each case one electrically conductive layer, for example a graphite layer”; see specification col. 2, lines 13-19, and see also specification col. 4, lines 27-33) of the at least one actuator (4), wherein the at least one actuator is arranged such that the valve (1) closes below a threshold voltage or when there is no voltage between the electrodes (see specification col. 4, lines 64, through col. 5, line 15).
Regarding claim 7, Kerler discloses the at least one fluid component (1) comprising the function of a valve (see figs. 1-3) comprises an inlet (inlet 901 according to fig. 1, inlet 13 according to fig. 2, or inlet 6 according to fig. 3) connected to a first of the at least one supply line (line connecting cushion 3 to port 6 according to fig. 1, port 11 according to in fig. 2, or port 6’ according to fig. 3) and at least one outlet (outlet 6 according to fig. 1, outlet 11 according to fig. 2, or outlet 6’ according to fig. 3) connected directly or indirectly to a fluid actuator (3) via a second of the at least one supply line (corresponding supply line for another one of the one or more cushions 3; see specification col. 3, line 46, through col. 4, line 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kerler discloses the at least one fluid component (1) comprising the function of a valve (see fig. 2) further has a vent outlet (see “air discharge duct” 12 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kerler discloses a further actuator (Kerler discloses multiple cushions 3 having corresponding valves 1; see specification col. 3, line 46, through col. 4, line 9).
Regarding claim 10, Kerler discloses the voltage supply (voltage supply which supplies voltage to conductive top and bottom sides of dielectric elastomer 4; see specification col. 4, lines 34-39) or a further voltage supply can apply a predetermined or predeterminable voltage (voltage sufficient to cause actuator 4 to deflect away from and/or return to contacting seat 7) between electrodes (“on the two sides of which there is arranged in each case one electrically conductive layer, for example a graphite layer”; see specification col. 2, lines 13-19, and see also specification col. 4, lines 27-33) of the further actuator (actuator 4 of another valve 1; see specification col. 3, line 46, through col. 4, line 9), and the further actuator is arranged such that the vent outlet (“air discharge duct” 12 in fig. 2) is closed below a threshold voltage or when there is no voltage between its electrodes (see specification col. 4, lines 64, through col. 5, line 15).
Regarding claim 15, Kerler discloses the one or a plurality of fluid actuator(s) (cushion 3) is/are fluid fillable bladder(s) (see specification col. 3, lines 44-53).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerler, as applied to claims 2 and 3, above, in view of US7537197 (“Heim”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kerler discloses the at least one fluid component (1) comprises the function of the valve and has an inlet (901 according to fig. 1, 13 according to fig. 2, or 6 according to fig. 3) via which the at least one fluid component is connected to the fluid line (line connecting compressed-air supply 2 to inlet 901 in fig. 1, inlet 13 in fig. 2, or to inlet 6 in fig. 3) and/or the at least one supply line (line connecting cushion 3 to port 6 according to fig. 1, port 11 according to in fig. 2, or port 6’ according to fig. 3) in such a way that the at least one actuator (4) is deformed under fluid pressure (via voltage applied thereto).
Kerler does not disclose the at least one fluid component comprising the function of the pressure sensor, wherein the vehicle comfort system has a detection device which detects a voltage and/or capacitance between the at least two electrodes of the at least one actuator, and wherein the fluid component determines an associated pressure value from the voltage and/or capacitance detected by the detection device.
However, Heim teaches (see specification col. 5, lines 1-17, and col. 15, lines 20-46) a fluid component (315) comprising a function of both a valve and a pressure sensor (see specification col. 5, lines 1-17, and col. 15, lines 20-46), wherein a detection device (a microcontroller or a microprocessor) detects a voltage and/or capacitance (see specification col. 5, lines 1-17) between two electrodes of an actuator (315) of the fluid component, and wherein the fluid component determines an associated pressure value (see specification col. 5, lines 1-17, and col. 15, lines 20-46) from the voltage and/or capacitance detected by the detection device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Kerler by configuring the fluid component to function as a valve and a pressure sensor, wherein the vehicle comfort system is configured with a detection device which detects a voltage and/or capacitance between the at least two electrodes of the at least one actuator, and wherein the fluid component determines an associated pressure value from the voltage and/or capacitance detected by the detection device, as taught by Heim, to have a capability to control flow through the fluid component in response to the detected pressure(s) and to be able to monitor or log operating pressures of the fluid component.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kerler discloses the at least one fluid component (1) comprising the function of a valve (see figs. 1-3), which presses against a corresponding valve seat (7).
Kerler does not disclose the at least one actuator being supported by an additional elastic element, wherein, the elastic element (64; 64') is arranged and designed in such a way that it presses the at least one actuator in a direction of a corresponding valve seat.
However, Heim teaches (see fig. 3A) a fluid component (see fig. 3A) comprising an actuator (361) supported by an additional elastic element (364), wherein, the fluid component comprises the function of a valve (see closure 361 and seat 363), and the elastic element is arranged and designed in such a way that it presses the actuator in a direction of a corresponding valve seat (363).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Kerler by employing an additional elastic element to bias the at least one actuator in a direction of the corresponding valve seat, as taught by Heim, to ensure better contact between the actuator and the corresponding valve seat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 4, 2025, have been fully considered:
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “a detection device” in claim 4, Applicant’s argument is persuasive, and this limitation is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. With regards to the currently deleted limitation “an evaluation device”, in light of amended claim 5, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation is no longer applicable to the claim.
With regards to the prior claim objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in the Office action dated September 10, 2025, Applicant’s current amendments have overcome these objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); however, the amended claims have motivated new claim objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), see Office action, above.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior art rejection of claim(s) 1-12 over Heim ‘197, Applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejection of record. However, the amended claims have necessitated new ground(s) of rejection rendering Applicant's arguments regarding Heim ‘197, as applied to the prior Office action, are moot.
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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753