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 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: “first connecting and disconnecting device” and “second connecting and disconnecting device” in claims 1 and 11 and “driving device” in claims 11 and 18.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraph 0036 recites "the first connecting and disconnecting device and the second connecting and disconnecting device are roller clutches or sprag clutches, wherein either the first connecting and disconnecting device or the second connecting and disconnecting device comprises at least one roller or at least one sprag". Therefore, the Examiner interprets "he first connecting and disconnecting device and the second connecting and disconnecting device" to be roller clutches or sprag clutches, wherein either the first connecting and disconnecting device or the second connecting and disconnecting device comprises at least one roller or at least one sprag. It is noted the specification does not explicitly recite the structure of “driving device” 302.
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.
Claims 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 18 recite “driving device” in lines 3.
The specification, as originally filed on 06/24/2024 merely recites “driving device 302 (refer to Figure 3A)” in Paragraph 0079.
The drawings as originally illustrates the device but not the components that constitute the device.
As no structural components are recited in the description or illustrated in the drawings to perform the function of driving the gear rotating shaft, the metes and bounds of “mechanism” cannot be determined.
Claims 12 – 16 and 19 – 20 depend from Claim 11.
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.
Claims 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 18 recite “driving device” in lines 3.
The specification, as originally filed on 06/24/2024 merely recites “driving device 302 (refer to Figure 3A)” in Paragraph 0079.
The drawings as originally illustrates the device but not the components that constitute the device.
As no structural components are recited in the description or illustrated in the drawings to perform the function of driving the gear rotating shaft, the metes and bounds of “mechanism” cannot be determined. This yields the claim indefinite.
Claims 12 – 16 and 19 – 20 depend from Claim 11.
Claim 18 recites “the driving device” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the driving device” in the claim.
Claim 18 depends from Claim 17, which depends from Claim 1.
Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for “an actuator device” and “a driving component”.
Antecedent basis for “a driving device” is established in Claim 11, from which Claim 18 does not depend.
Because it is unclear how to rectify the antecedent basis issue, the claim is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “the driving device” in Claim 18 to be “the actuator device”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 10 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 11 – 16 and 18 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 17, and 19, the closest prior art is as follows:
You et al. (CN213441990U, listed on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/24/2024, English Machine Translation provided herein and relied upon below):
An air outlet device (air outlet, title) comprising:
a first blade group (3) and a second blade group (2), wherein the rotation of the driving device (4) in the first rotation direction (first direction, as described on Page 4, lines 25-36) is capable of driving (as described on Page 4, lines 25-36) the first blade group (3, “the main blade 2 does not move”, Page 4, line 36), and the rotation of the driving device (4) in the second rotation direction (second direction, as described on Page 4, lines 37-48) is configured to drive (as described on Page 4, lines 37-48) the second blade group (3), wherein
the driving device (4) comprises an actuator (4), a first output gear (5.1), a first one-way transmission member (5.2) and a first output assembly including a first bevel gear (5.3) and a second bevel gear (5.4), a second output gear (6.1), a second one-way transmission member (6.2) and a second output assembly including a rotating block (6.3) and a transmission rod (6.4).
However, You lacks showing the specific limitations of the actuator device of Claim 1 or the clutch device of Claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
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, Helena Kosanovic, can be reached on 571-272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA K TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights