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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application ( DE10 2023 106 645.5 – filed 16 March, 2023 and DE10 2024 107 222.9 – filed 14 March, 2024) through submitting copies of the certified foreign priority documents on 25 April, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2023 106 645.5 and DE10 2024 107 222.9 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55. A copy of the certified copy filed by applicant, including a copy filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, will not satisfy the requirement in 37 CFR 1.55(g) for a certified copy. See MPEP § 215 – II.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 March, 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (directed to claims 1-13 and 17-18) in the reply filed on 16 March, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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:
“ventilation device which is designed to open a connection line between an intermediate space between the outer wall section and the inner wall section of the double-walled pipe or of the double-walled container and the duct in a first setting so as to be permeable to the gas and to close it in a second setting so as to be impermeable to gas” in claim 1. The ventilation device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0048] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“an access device, which is designed to release a connection line between an external environment and the duct in a first setting permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting, impermeable to gas” in claim 1. The access device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0048] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“closing device” in claim 4. The closing device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraphs [0045]-[0047] and [0093] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“connecting part” in claim 8. The connecting part is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0109] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“ a ventilation device to open a connection line between an intermediate space between the outer wall section and the inner wall section of the double-walled pipe or of the double-walled container and the duct in a first setting so as to be permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting so as to be impermeable to gas” in claim 17. The ventilation device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0048] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“an access device, which is designed to release a connection line between an external environment and the duct in a first setting permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting, impermeable to gas” in claim 17. The access device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0048] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“a ventilation device to open a connection line between an intermediate space between the outer wall section and the inner wall section of the double- walled pipe or of the double-walled container and the duct in a first setting so as to be permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting so as to be impermeable to gas” in claim 18. The ventilation device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0048] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
“an access device to release a connection line between an external environment and the duct in a first setting permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting, impermeable to gas” in claim 18. The access device is understood to be the recited structure within paragraph [0048] of the originally-filed specification and the equivalents thereof.
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 term “thin-walled”, as used within claims 2 and 17, is a relative term. The meaning of the term is definite, in light of the examples and/or teachings provided within the originally-filed specification that can be used to measure the degree thereof without a precise numerical measurement. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
The phrase “close to the proximal end”, as used within claims 1, 17, and 18, is a relative phrase. The meaning of the term is definite, in light of the examples and/or teachings provided within the originally-filed specification that can be used to measure the degree thereof without a precise numerical measurement. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
The phrase “close to the distal end”, as used within claims 1, 17, and 18, is a relative phrase. The meaning of the term is definite, in light of the examples and/or teachings provided within the originally-filed specification that can be used to measure the degree thereof without a precise numerical measurement. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “an peripheral area”, which should be corrected to - - [[an]] a peripheral area - -.
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 2-4, 9-13, and 18 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 2 recites the limitation "the region of the distal end" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a region of the distal end.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in particular to at most 50 percent of the wall thickness of the protective tube body in a non-thin walled section in the region of the distal end" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted the intention of the claim is to require this subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular is formed at least in sections by a corrugated bellows or a membrane bellows" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted the intention of the claim is to require this subject matter.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the thermowell body" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a thermowell body.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the end face" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an end face.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, and thereby, is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency and recitation of the same limitation at issue.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "in particular, also includes an peripheral area, which has a conical shape, which merges into the tangential surface of the spherical segment" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted the intention of the claim is to require this subject matter.
Claim 11 recites “further including a temperature sensor device for measuring a temperature of a medium showing at least one measuring insert arranged in the protective tube”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the meaning “showing at least one measuring insert arranged in the protective tube”. Based on the recitation of paragraph [0064] of the originally-filed specification, it appears the intention of the claim is to provide wherein the temperature sensor device has at least one measuring insert. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as such.
Claims 12-13 depend from rejected claim 11, and thereby, are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the end face" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as an end face.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12, and thereby, is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency and recitation of the same limitation at issue.
Claim 18 recites “a temperature sensor in thermal contact of a medium showing at least one measuring insert arranged in the protective tube”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear the meaning “showing at least one measuring insert arranged in the protective tube”. Based on the recitation of paragraph [0064] of the originally-filed specification, it appears the intention of the claim is to provide wherein the temperature sensor device has at least one measuring insert. For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-8, and 17 are allowed.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-4 and 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the claimed invention as characterized by independent claims 1, 17, and 18, and the dependents thereof. Particularly, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest, in combination with the other requirements of the claim, “a ventilation device which is designed to open a connection line between an intermediate space between the outer wall section and the inner wall section of the double-walled pipe or of the double-walled container and the duct in a first setting so as to be permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting so as to be impermeable to gas; and/or an access device, which is designed to release a connection line between an external environment and the duct in a first setting permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting, impermeable to gas.” (claim 1), “a ventilation device to open a connection line between an intermediate space between the outer wall section and the inner wall section of the double-walled pipe or of the double-walled container and the duct in a first setting so as to be permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting so as to be impermeable to gas; and/or an access device, which is designed to release a connection line between an external environment and the duct in a first setting permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting, impermeable to gas” (claim 17), and “a ventilation device to open a connection line between an intermediate space between the outer wall section and the inner wall section of the double- walled pipe or of the double-walled container and the duct in a first setting so as to be permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting so as to be impermeable to gas; and/or an access device to release a connection line between an external environment and the duct in a first setting permeable to gas and to close it in a second setting, impermeable to gas” (claim 18). As such, the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, absent impermissible hindsight reasoning, the claimed inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 5/29/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights