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 .
Abstract
1. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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 1 recites the limitation “a flow channel” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A flow element which word element constitutes a generic term for means plus. The specification does not appear to provide any specific detail of what constitutes the flow element other than the flow element being of a bell-like form with a downwardly expending cross-section. As the recitation of a bell-like form is not a standard geometric shape, the specification does not appear to provide sufficient detail of the flow element. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-15 are rejected based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Claims 4, 8, 12 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation of “a bell-like manner” which is indefinite as it is unclear which specific geometrical shape applicant is referring to since the word bell-like manner is not a standard geometric shape. As the recitation of a bell-like form is not a standard geometric shape, the specification does not appear to provide sufficient detail of the flow element. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 8, line 2 calls for the limitation of “it has a circumferential face” which is confusing as it is unclear which specific structure previously cited the word “it” is referring to.
Claim 12, line 2 recites the limitation of "the inclination in the end region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, line 2 recites the limitation of “in a state in which…” which is indefinite as is unclear what is constituted by the word state.
Claim 14, line 3 recites the word “the wall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected based upon their dependency from claim 8.
Examiner’s Comments
3. For Applicant’s information, Applicant may consider amending the claims as indicated below which overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), paragraph issues.
Claim 1 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--1. (Currently Amended) A device for adjusting an air volume flow, through which air can flow, wherein a flow element is arranged defining a portion of the air channel, wherein the flow element has a cover, a cross section of the cover is in a plane orthogonal to the center axis along the centre axis away from the throttle, and wherein the cover has an end region towards the throttle and which forms an outflow edge
Claim 5 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--5. (Currently Amended) The device according to Claim 1, wherein the cover is curved inwards with the exception of the end region
Claim 7 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--7. (Currently Amended) The device according to Claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the cover defining the portion of the air channel is smooth. --
Claim 8 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--8. (Currently Amended) The device according to Claim 1, wherein the device has a circumferential face which is opposite the end region of the cover and which together with the end region forms an outlet opening of the air channel. --
Claim 9 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--9. (Currently Amended) The device according to Claim 8, wherein the circumferential face has a surface facing the air channel that is inclined away from the end region of the cover. --
Claim 11 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--11. (Currently Amended) The device according to Claim 8, wherein the outlet opening is in the form of an annular channel which is defined by the edge region which forms the outflow edge and by the circumferential face, wherein the annular channel has a uniform cross section
Claim 14 has been amended and replaced by the following:
--14. (Currently Amended) The device according to Claim l, first direction leads away from the wall opening. --
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US-5340358-A) to Halupczok; Johann,
(DE-102021204015-A1) to SATTLER ANDREAS,
(WO-2022101056-A1) to MATHIS PAUL,
(EP-2783166-B1) to DAMIZET PATRICK,
(DE-4405738-C1) to MUELLER GOTTFRIED
(EP-0414022-B1) to WECK FRANZ DIPL-ING
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571)272-6681. 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
02/02/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763