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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 4th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on July 14th, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on May 21st, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-6 & 8-10 have been amended. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-6 & 8-10 still remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
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: “latching elements” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 & 8-10 were 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. Applicant’s amendments have remedied some of these issues, but issues remain.
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 8 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 8 recites “a respective recess”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) further defining (i.e. part of) the “at least one recess” recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing another recess altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 8 recites “per balance weight”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this limitation is 1) attempting to refer back to the “at least balance weight” recited in Claim 1 or 2) introducing another balancing weight altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes herein, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
Claim 8 recites “in which recess the at least one balancing weight is held in a latching manner”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is not made clear whether this phrasing is requiring the “respective recess” to hold more than one balancing weight or not. As currently recited, it appears that a single recess is being required to hold all the balancing weights that make up the “at least one balancing weight” recited in Claim 1, but such an arrangement (i.e. multiple weights within a single recess) does not appear to be described or supported in the originally filed specification. Thus, due to this discrepancy in scope, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. As far as the examiner understands, it appears most likely that this limitation is attempting to require one balancing weight to be arranged in each recess of the at least one recess, and thus, the examiner has interpreted the limitation in this manner. However, clarification in the claim language is required.
For the sake of expeditious prosecution, the examiner respectfully recommends that Applicant amend the language of Claim 8 to read: “The compressed-air supply system according to claim 1, wherein a respective recess of the at least one recess is provided for each balancing weight of the at least one balancing weight, each respective recess of the at least one recess holding one corresponding balance weight of the at least one balancing weight (26)
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed July 14th, 2026, with respect to the previously applied prior art rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 & 8-10 are found to be provisionally allowable, pending Applicant overcoming the 112(b) rejections noted above. Applicant should be aware that the application cannot be properly allowed until all of the issues noted above have been fully remedied by Applicant.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s amendments and corresponding arguments filed July 14th, 2026 have overcome the previously applied prior art rejections using Medici and Cameron. In view of Applicant’s amendments, the examiner has conducted an updated prior art search and has determined that the best available prior art fails to disclose the invention now recited in amended Claim 1. The best available prior art is as follows:
CN 201671788 to Medici (applied in previous rejections)
US 5,111,713 to Cameron
US 2019/0011014 to Zouani
US 2015/0330379 to Chou
Medici is considered to be the most relevant prior art document available, and discloses much o of Applicant’s recited invention (as noted in previous office actions). However, as articulated by Applicant in the most recent reply, Medici fails to disclose at least one balancing weight that is snap-fitted in at least one recess having a shape that narrows from a radially outer curved portion to a radially inner portion and which is equipped with latching elements, as now recited in Claim 1.
Cameron, Zouani, and Chou disclose additional rotary elements having various balancing means, but none of these reference successfully remedy the deficiencies in Medici.
As such, the examiner finds Applicant’s recited invention to be novel and non-obvious over the best available prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights