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 .
Response to Amendment
The submission entered January 14, 2026 in response to an Office Action mailed October 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14-18, 20, 21 are pending. Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 19 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14-17, 20, 21 is/are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the distribution field of gas flow rate refers to a spatial representation of gas flow rate within a defined volume or region. However, flow rate is a value that is constant within a system having a single entrance and a single exit. A series of pipelines, having a single entrance and a single exit, would have a constant flow rate between the entrance and exit. Flow rate is defined as flow velocity multiplied by the area of the pipeline at the location of the measured velocity. As the diameter of the pipeline changes, so does the area, but the velocity will change inversely to keep the flow rate constant. Applicant argues the distribution field of gas flow rate refers to a spatial representation of gas flow rate with a define volume or region. However, as the flow rate is constant in a pipeline, the spatial representation of gas flow rate along the would also be constant. Further, the flow rate would not change along the cross-section of the pipeline, as the cross-sectional area is constant at each cross-section, i.e., does not change in the radial direction.
Applicant argues it can be understood that the uniformity index of the distribution field can change with the length of the pipeline as the gas flow condition will change with changing length of the pipeline. However, applicant fails to provide evidentiary support for this statement. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding the transition pipeline, the structure recited in claims 15 and 20 fails to recite a transition pipeline. However, the claim language recites pipelines of different diameters; therefore, some sort of transition would be needed between the pipelines. The claim language is unclear as to whether or not a transition pipeline is required.
In view of the above arguments and the amended claim language, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 112.
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:
See “power unit is configured to provide power for the fan” in claim 15, with “unit” being the generic placeholder and “configured to provide power for the fan” being the modifying functional language.
See “power unit is configured to provide power for the fan” in claim 20, with “unit” being the generic placeholder and “configured to provide power for the fan” being the modifying functional language.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14-18, 20, 21 are 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, the specification fails to disclose a relationship between the length of the pipeline and the uniformity index. The specification further fails to disclose how the uniformity index is calculated or what is considered to comprise the distribution field. Therefore, the claim language “performing an optimization calculation on the parametric fluid domain three-dimensional model taking lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters as variables and a uniformity index of a distribution field of gas flow rate in the elephant bionic trunk conveying pipeline as a target, to output the lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters” is not supported by the specification.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the specification fails to disclose a relationship between the length of the pipeline and the uniformity index. The specification further fails to disclose how the uniformity index is calculated or what is considered to comprise the distribution field. Therefore, the claim language “performing an optimization calculation on the parametric fluid domain three-dimensional model taking lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters as variables and a uniformity index of a distribution field of gas flow rate in the elephant bionic trunk conveying pipeline as a target, to output the lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters” is not supported by the specification.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 17-18, 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 7, 9-11, 14-18, 20, 21 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “judging whether a transition pipeline is used at a diameter varying position between the pipelines with different diameters, proceeding to step 3 in a case where the transition pipeline is used, and proceeding to step 4 in a case where the transition pipeline is not used” is unclear. The structure recited in the claim fails to set forth a transition pipeline. In view of the lack of a transition pipeline, step 3 of the method would never be performed.
Also, the claim language of claim 15 does not set forth that the diameter of the pipelines with different inner diameters changes, i.e., each pipeline has a constant diameter. In this situation, a transition pipeline would have to be present in order to join pipelines of different diameters, and step 3 would always be performed. Therefore, the claim scope is unclear as to whether step 3 is required by the claim language, since it can be argued that step 3 is never performed or step 3 is always performed.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, the language “constructing a parametric fluid domain three-dimensional model of a conveying pipeline formed by the pipelines with different inner diameters” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “conveying pipeline” in the recitation is different from the “pressure-type conveying pipeline”.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, the language “performing an optimization calculation on the parametric fluid domain three-dimensional model taking lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters as variables and a uniformity index of a distribution field of gas flow rate in the conveying pipeline satisfying a preset requirement as a target, to output the lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters” is unclear. The claim language sets forth that the lengths of the pipelines are variables, but the language is unclear as to how the lengths of the pipelines effect the uniformity index of the distribution field. Further, the specification fails to establish a relationship between the pipeline length and the uniformity index. The specification fails to disclose how the uniformity index is calculated or what is considered the distribution field. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear.
It is unclear from the language of claim 15 whether any of the recited structure is required for performing the steps of the method.
Claim 16 is considered indefinite because if the step of calculating a length of the transition pipeline is not required by claim 15, then the language of claim 16 is moot and is not further limiting.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “judging whether a transition pipeline is used at a diameter varying position between the pipelines with different diameters, proceeding to step 3 in a case where the transition pipeline is used, and proceeding to step 4 in a case where the transition pipeline is not used” is unclear. The structure recited in the claim fails to set forth a transition pipeline. In view of the lack of a transition pipeline, step 3 of the method would never be performed.
Also, the claim language of claim 20 does not set forth that the diameter of the pipelines with different inner diameters changes, i.e., each pipeline has a constant diameter. In this situation, a transition pipeline would have to be present in order to join pipelines of different diameters, and step 3 would always be performed. Therefore, the claim scope is unclear as to whether step 3 is required by the claim language, since it can be argued that step 3 is never performed or step 3 is always performed.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the language “constructing a parametric fluid domain three-dimensional model of a conveying pipeline formed by the pipelines with different inner diameters” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the “conveying pipeline” in the recitation is different from the “pressure-type conveying pipeline”.
Regarding Claim(s) 20, the language “performing an optimization calculation on the parametric fluid domain three-dimensional model taking lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters as variables and a uniformity index of a distribution field of gas flow rate in the conveying pipeline satisfying a preset requirement as a target, to output the lengths of the pipelines with different inner diameters” is unclear. The claim language sets forth that the lengths of the pipelines are variables, but the language is unclear as to how the lengths of the pipelines effect the uniformity index of the distribution field. Further, the specification fails to establish a relationship between the pipeline length and the uniformity index. The specification fails to disclose how the uniformity index is calculated or what is considered the distribution field. The scope of the claim is therefore unclear.
It is unclear from the language of claim 20 whether any of the recited structure is required for performing the steps of the method.
Claim 21 is considered indefinite because if the step of calculating a length of the transition pipeline is not required by claim 20, then the language of claim 21 is moot and is not further limiting.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 17-18, 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. The claims will be treated as best understood.
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 16 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. As described above, if the step of calculating a length of the transition pipeline is not required by claim 15, then the language of claim 16 is moot and is not further limiting. 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 21 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. As described above, if the step of calculating a length of the transition pipeline is not required by claim 20, then the language of claim 21 is moot and is not further limiting. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14-18, 20, 21 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights