DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“drive device” recited in claim 1
“air seal mechanism” recited in claim 1
“supply device” recited in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation “drive device” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”).
(B) The generic placeholder is being interpreted so as to be modified by functional language (“configured to rotationally drive the rotary shaft”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “drive device” will be interpreted so as to comprise a ‘direct drive motor,’ as taught by the Specification (paragraph 32), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “air seal mechanism” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“mechanism”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to supply air from an air supply port ...”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Examiner notes that “air seal mechanism” invokes a generic structure of a “seal.” However, “seals” are not known in the art to perform the claimed function of ‘supplying air from an air supply port.’ Therefore, the claim does not teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function.
The limitation “supply device” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“device”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“configured to supply, to the supply flow channel, a working fluid ...”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “...configured to supply air from an air supply port formed in the frame into the frame in order to blow out ...” It is generally unclear as to Applicant’s intent regarding “... in the frame into the frame ...” For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... configured to supply air from an air supply port into an interior of the frame, wherein the air supply port is formed in the frame, in order to blow out ...”
As explained above, the claim limitations “air seal mechanism” and “supply device” each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the limitation “air seal mechanism,” while the Specification clearly provides antecedent basis for the limitation (paragraphs 36 and 56), the Specification does not teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed function. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches the ‘air seal mechanism’ as comprising a ‘supply flow channel’ (figure 1, element 60 being the ‘air seal mechanism’ and elements 65a and 65b being the ‘supply flow channel’; paragraphs 36 – 40). However, the Specification teaches that the ‘supply flow channel’ is configured to supply air from outside the frame to an ‘air supply port’ formed in the frame (figure 1, element 65d being the ‘air supply port’; paragraphs 36 - 40). The Specification does not teach the ‘supply flow channel’ performing the claimed function of ‘supplying air from the supply flow channel into an interior of the frame. Regarding the limitation “supply device,” the Specification provides antecedent basis for the limitation “supply device” (paragraphs 36 and 56). However, the Specification does not teach sufficient structure for the limitation to perform the claimed functions (paragraphs 39 and 53 – 57). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As explained above, the limitations “air seal mechanism” and “supply device” each invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As further explained above, the Specification does not teach the required structure for the limitations to perform their respective claimed functions. Therefore, the limitations are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on pages 4 – 5 that the limitation “air seal mechanism” does not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and, if the limitation does invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the Specification teaches sufficient structure to perform the claimed limitation. Examiner disagrees. Examiner first refers to the ‘Claim Interpretation” section above to explain why the “air seal mechanism” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner notes that Applicant provides no specific arguments or reasons as to why “air seal mechanism” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Secondly, Applicant argues that paragraphs 36 – 41 provides sufficient structure for the “air seal mechanism” to perform the claimed function. Examiner again disagrees. Examiner recognizes that the Specification teaches the ‘air seal mechanism’ as comprising a ‘supply flow channel’ (figure 1, element 60 being the ‘air seal mechanism’ and elements 65a and 65b being the ‘supply flow channel’; paragraphs 36 – 40). However, the Specification teaches that the ‘supply flow channel’ is configured to supply air from outside the frame to an ‘air supply port’ formed in the frame (figure 1, element 65d being the ‘air supply port’; paragraphs 36 - 40). The Specification does not teach the ‘supply flow channel’ performing the claimed function of ‘supplying air from the supply flow channel into an interior of the frame. Examiner notes that Applicant does not state what structure the Specification teaches as performing the claimed function.
Applicant further argues, on pages 4 – 6, that the limitation “supply device” does not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and, if the limitation does invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the Specification teaches sufficient structure to perform the claimed limitation. Examiner disagrees. Examiner first refers to the ‘Claim Interpretation” section above to explain why the “supply device” invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner notes that Applicant provides no specific arguments or reasons as to why the “supply device” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Secondly, Applicant argues that paragraphs 53 – 58 and 70 - 71 provides sufficient structure for the “supply device” to perform the claimed function. Examiner again disagrees. While Applicant’s cited portions of the Specification provides antecedent basis for the “supply device” and the “supply device” performing the claimed function, the cited portions do not teach the structure of the “supply device” necessary to perform the claimed function. Examiner notes that Applicant does not state what structure the Specification teaches as performing the claimed function.
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights