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 .
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: “fastening devices” in claim 8.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a screw (fastening device) at least described in paragraph 0061 of the 04/21/2024 specification.
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.
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 12 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 12 recites the limitation “wherein the membrane is gas-permeable, however fluid-impermeable”, however, Fluids are both liquids and gasses, while the Applicant states “the membrane can be gas-permeable but fluid-impermeable. In other words, the membrane can be semi-permeable.” In their own ¶0028 of the Specifications filed 04/21/2026, while
Also stating in the next ¶0029 that “As an alternative, the membrane can be impermeable to fluids of all types, i.e. in particular gases and liquids.”, seemingly confirming the Applicant understands “fluids of all types”.
The Applicant’s claims of the membrane being gas-permeable, however fluid-impermeable, raises a lack of clarity from how the Applicant can claim that the membrane is fluid-impermeable, meaning no liquid or gas can pass, while also claiming that its gas-permeable, meaning gas can in fact pass. Such a juxtaposition would seem to be at odds with the basic definition of what a fluid is and how this membrane reacts to either or both. For examination purposes, and since the Applicant has disclosed a semi-permeable option, the limitation will be interpreted as the membrane is semi-permeable, until further clarity is rendered.
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.
Claims 1-7 & 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zbiral et al (DE102019100085.8), hereinafter referred to as Zbiral (US 2021/0320376 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zbiral (DE 102019100085.8) shows a degassing unit for an electronics housing, the degassing unit comprising:
a base body (1, Fig. 1) fluid-tightly connectable to an edge of a pressure compensation opening of the electronics housing (¶0013, Lines 1-5), the base body comprising a gas passage opening (15, Fig. 1/2);
a membrane (6/61, Fig. 1 – the Examiner would like to point out the membrane 6 and its membrane surface 61 in Figs 2/3, while the identification arrow points to a line in Fig. 2, that like indicating the membrane 6 can be seen in Fig. 3 as being moved upwards, giving some clarity on what and where the membrane is at and identified within the prior art) covering the gas passage opening (Fig. 1/2) and being fluid-tightly connected to the base body in a region surrounding the gas passage opening (Fig. 1/2, ¶0072 - the membrane 6 is fluid-tightly connected to the base body 1, in a region of element 2, which surrounds the gas passage opening 15);
an emergency degassing mandrel (33, Fig. 2 – Dictionary.com defined Mandrel: “a usually tapered or cylindrical axle, spindle, or arbor inserted into a hole in a piece of work to support it during machining”; the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that element 33 functions as tapered axle to support a machining action of changing positions seen in Figs. 2/3) comprising a tip (see Annotated Figure 1) pointing towards the membrane (Fig. 2/3);
a contact element (2, Fig. 1/2 - the structure of element 2, of which comprises of elements 22, is resiliently displaceable) being resiliently displaceable (Fig. 2/3 – the contact element 2 is resiliently displaceable at least by the stroke distance H seen in Fig. 3) and disposed between the tip of the emergency degassing mandrel and the membrane in a non-operating state (Fig. 2);
a covering hood (3, Fig. 1/2) disposed on an exterior side of the base body (Fig. 1/2); and
a spring element (4, Fig. 1) for a resilient bearing of the contact element (Fig. 2/3 – elements 22 of the contact element 2 is a resilient bearing for the spring, as it keeps the spring aligned and engaged), the spring element being interposed between the covering hood and the contact element (Fig. 2/3).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Zbiral shows wherein the membrane (6, Fig. 3) is displaceable against a force generated by the contact element (Fig. 3 – as the Applicant has shown the membrane to be displaceable against a force generated by the contact element by outlining in ¶0054 that the contact element 46 is displaceable against the action of the spring force of the spring element 48, as does Zbrial show with the membrane 6 is disposable against a force generated by the contact element’s engagement with the spring element 4, as in respective positions seen in Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Zbiral shows wherein the contact element (2, Fig. 2) rests on the membrane in the non-operating state (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zbiral shows wherein the membrane has a bellows structure (Fig. 1/2/3 - as the Applicant states a special definition in ¶0016 of the term “bellows structure”, “The term "bellows structure" is to be interpreted broadly and is not to be understood in such a restrictive manner that this "bellows" must result from a folding process or, for example like an accordion, has a one-dimensional extension”, as such, in light of the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defining Bellows: “an instrument or machine that by alternative expansion and contraction draws in air through a valve or orifice and expels it through a tube”, the Examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand the membrane 6 has a bellows structure that is expanded and contracted to draw air through a valve and expels it through a tube or opening) concentrically to an axis of the emergency degassing mandrel (Fig. 1/2).
Regarding claim 5, Zbiral shows further comprising a support device (12, Fig. 1) on which the membrane rests in the non-operating state (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Zbiral shows wherein the support device (12, Fig. 2) and the bellows structure are designed to correspond to each other (Fig. 3 – the support device and the membrane 6 and its bellows structure are designed to correspond to each other).
Regarding claim 7, Zbiral shows further comprising a protective grid overlapping the membrane on an interior side (Fig. 1 – element 12 is a concentric protective lattice comprising of the protective grid layout that overlaps the membrane 6).
Regarding claim 10, Zbiral shows wherein the spring element comprises a coil spring (4, Fig. 1/2/3) or a leaf spring.
Regarding claim 11, Zbiral shows wherein the spring element surrounds the emergency degassing mandrel (Fig. 2/3 – the spring element 4 surrounds the emergency degassing mandrel 33) representing a guide for the spring element and/or the contact element (Fig. 2/3 - the spring element 4 surrounds the emergency degassing mandrel 33, of which represents and acts as a guide for the spring element).
Regarding claim 12, Zbiral shows wherein the membrane is gas-permeable, however fluid-impermeable (¶0072 – the membrane 6 is semipermeable; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 13, Zbiral shows wherein the covering hood (3, Fig. 1/2) is latched to the base body (1, Fig. 1/2 – the Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Latch: “any various devices in which mating mechanical parts to fasten but usually not to lock something”; the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that the covering hood is latched to the base body in the fastening region 52).
Regarding claim 14, Zbiral shows wherein the emergency degassing mandrel and the covering hood are formed integrally with one another (Fig. 2/3).
Regarding claim 15, Zbiral shows further comprising a sealing element (¶0022, Lines 1-3) disposed on the base body and for sealing with respect to the electronics housing (¶0022, Lines 1-3 – the degassing unit can comprise of a housing seal for ensuring an optimal sealing action at the base body and the electronic housing).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zbiral et al (DE102019100085.8), hereinafter referred to as Zbiral (US 2021/0320376 will be used as a suitable translation), in view of Heim et al (US 2013/0032219), hereinafter referred to as Heim.
Regarding claim 8, Zbiral shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 including the protective grid (Fig. 2/3 – the protective grid of element the support device 12 and the base body are held together) and the base body (1, Fig. 1) being held together (Fig. 2/3).
However, Zbiral lacks showing further comprising sleeves for allowing passage of fastening devices for holding together the protective grid and the base body.
Heim (US 2013/0032219), a pressure device for an electronic housing, is in the same field of endeavor as Zbiral which is a pressure device for an electronic housing.
Heim teaches sleeves (154, Fig. 1/2) for allowing passage of fastening devices (Fig. 1/2, ¶0086, Lines 5-7 – the sleeves 154 allow for the passage of fastening devices, which are screws).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base body of Zbiral to incorporate the teachings of the sleeves and fastening devices of Heim, which would provide a means to ensure the fasten ability and releasability of the protective grid and the base body, ensuring a solid connection in a device with moving parts (¶0086).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zbiral et al (DE102019100085.8), hereinafter referred to as Zbiral (US 2021/0320376 will be used as a suitable translation), in view of Kusunoki et al (US 2015/072184), hereinafter referred to as Kusunoki.
Regarding claim 9, Zbiral shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the contact element and the emergency degassing mandrel.
However, Zbiral lacks showing wherein the contact element comprises a recess for allowing passage of the emergency degassing mandrel.
Kusunoki (US 2015/072184), a pressure device for an electronic housing, is in the same field of endeavor as Zbiral which is a pressure device for an electronic housing.
Kusunoki teaches wherein the contact element (140, Fig. 7) comprises a recess (144, Fig. 7) for allowing passage of the emergency degassing mandrel (150/151, Fig. 7 - as the Applicant discloses the contact element 46 is to comprise of a recess for allowing passage of the emergency degassing mandrel 42 in Fig. 3 by showing an aperture in the contact element 46 where the emergency degassing mandrel 42 is to pass, as does Kusunoki teach with the contact element 140 comprising a recess 144 for allowing passage of the emergency degassing mandrel 150 and its tip 151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact element and emergency degassing mandrel of Zbiral to incorporate the teachings of the contact element and emergency degassing mandrel of Kusunoki, which would provide a functionaly arrangement between the contact element and the emergency degassing mandrel that would allow for passage of gas and prohibit passage of liquid (¶0007).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zbiral et al (DE102019100085.8), hereinafter referred to as Zbiral (US 2021/0320376 will be used as a suitable translation).
Regarding claim 16, Zbiral (DE 102019100085.8) shows an electronics housing comprising:
a pressure compensation opening (¶0013, Lines 1-5); and
a degassing unit (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a base body (1, Fig. 1) fluid-tightly connectable to an edge of the pressure compensation opening (¶0013, Lines 1-5), the base body comprising a gas passage opening (15, Fig. 1/2);
a membrane (6, Fig. 1) covering the gas passage opening (Fig. 1/2) and being fluid-tightly connected to the base body in a region surrounding the gas passage opening (Fig. 1/2, ¶0072 - the membrane 6 is fluid-tightly connected to the base body 1, in a region of element 2, which surrounds the gas passage opening 15);
an emergency degassing mandrel (33, Fig. 2 – Dictionary.com defined Mandrel: “a usually tapered or cylindrical axle, spindle, or arbor inserted into a hole in a piece of work to support it during machining”; the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that element 33 functions as tapered axle to support a machining action of changing positions seen in Figs. 2/3) comprising a tip (see Annotated Figure 1) pointing towards the membrane (Fig. 2/3);
a contact element (2, Fig. 1/2 - the structure of the contact element 2, of which comprises of elements 22, is resiliently displaceable) being resiliently displaceable (Fig. 2/3 – the contact element 2 is resiliently displaceable at least by the stroke distance H seen in Fig. 3) and disposed between the tip of the emergency degassing mandrel and the membrane in a non-operating state (Fig. 2);
a covering hood (3, Fig. 1/2) disposed on an exterior side of the base body (Fig. 1/2); and
a spring element (4, Fig. 1) for a resilient bearing of the contact element (Fig. 2/3 – elements 22 of the contact element 2 is a resilient bearing for the spring, as it keeps the spring aligned and engaged), the spring element being interposed between the covering hood and the contact element (Fig. 2/3).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related pressure valves:
CN209430816 – Xu discloses resettable air valve that comprises of sleeves
US 2022/0146009 – Weidmann discloses a pressure relief valve comprising a spring mounted mandrel
US 2016/0036025 – Hofer discloses a degassing valve with a flexible membrane aligned with a protective grid
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
