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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
“gas-permeable first protective structure” in claim 1, line 10, the structure for which is described in the specification paragraph [0031]
“gas-permeable second protective structure” in claim 1, lines 11-12, the structure for which is described in the specification paragraphs [0052] and [0061].
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 Objections
Claims 2, 4-8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8, all recitations of “the second protective structure” should read –the gas-permeable second protective structure--.
In claim 5, the recitation “the first and/or second protective structure” should read –the gas-permeable first and/or second protective structure--.
In claim 11, the recitation “the first and second protective structures” should read –the gas-permeable first and second protective structures--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-10 and 12 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the housing” in line 2; however, the claim is unclear as to if this recitation refers to the “grid-shaped housing” recited in claim 1, line 2, or a machine housing (15; see fig. 1 of present disclosure), see specification paragraph [0046]. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the housing” in claim 8, line 2, should read –the grid-shaped housing--.
Similarly, claims 9, 10 and 12 recite the limitation “the housing” and are rejected for the same reason as claim 8, above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6 and 11-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US5125428 (“Rauter”).
Regarding claim 1, Rauter discloses a pressure equalization apparatus (2.1), comprising:
a grid-shaped housing (mainly defined by 3, 9 and 17) with a gas passage opening (8) which connects an inner side (bottom side, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) and an outer side (upper side, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) of the pressure equalization apparatus in a flow-conducting manner in a flow direction depending on a differential pressure (flow can pass bidirectionally through gas passage opening 8), the gas passage opening being covered by an inner membrane (10B), arranged toward the inner side, and an outer membrane (10A), arranged toward the outer side, the inner membrane and the outer membrane being arranged in each case in a gas-permeable manner and in a functional series circuit with respect to one another (see fig. 1), and the inner membrane and the outer membrane being arranged at a spacing (see spaced distance between membranes 10A and 10B) adjacently with respect to one another, as viewed in the flow direction between the inner side and the outer side,
wherein a gas-permeable first protective structure (member 13, which is disposed below inner membrane 10B, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) is connected functionally upstream of the inner membrane on a side (bottom side, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) which faces the inner side, and/or wherein a gas-permeable second protective structure (one or more of members 13 disposed between membranes 10A and 10B) is arranged in the spacing.
Regarding claim 2, Rauter discloses the second protective structure (one or more of members 13 disposed between membranes 10A and 10B) is formed by an annular collar which delimits the gas passage opening on an outer peripheral side (outer side of inner membrane 10B).
Regarding claim 5, Rauter discloses the first (member 13, which is disposed below inner membrane 10B, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) and/or the second (one or more of members 13 disposed between membranes 10A and 10B) protective structure have/has apertures (plates 13 are apertured plates; see detail of fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Rauter discloses the second protective structure (one or more of members 13 disposed between membranes 10A and 10B) is configured with an inner fastening projection (protruding portion of member 17 against which inner membrane 10B and corresponding structures 13 are clamped) and an outer fastening projection (portion of member 17 against which outer membrane 10A and corresponding structures 13 are clamped) for fastening the inner membrane (10B) and the outer membrane (10A), and wherein the fastening projections extend in the flow direction in an opposed manner with respect to one another (both inner and outer fastening projections have elements which extend both radially and longitudinally, the longitudinal extension portions extend in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 11, Rauter discloses at least one of the first (10A) and second (10B) protective structures has an oleophobic coating (see specification col. 4, lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 12, Rauter discloses the housing (mainly defined by 3, 9 and 17) and the outer membrane (10A) are covered on the outer side (top side, relative to the orientation of fig. 1) by a cover (7).
Regarding claim 13, Rauter discloses the outer membrane (10A) is of water-repellent configuration at least on a side which faces the outer side (see specification col. 4, lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 14, Rauter discloses the outer membrane (10A) is of dust-repellent configuration at least on a side which faces the outer side (see specification col. 4, lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 15, Rauter discloses the inner membrane (10B) is of oil-repellent configuration at least on a side which faces the inner side (see specification col. 4, lines 37-47).
Regarding claim 16, Rauter discloses a method, comprising: providing the pressure equalization apparatus (2.1; see fig. 1) for a machine housing (1); and receiving an oleiferous medium (via gas passage opening 8; see specification col. 4, lines 37-47) in the pressure equalization apparatus.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 12-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US9242198 (“Yano”).
Regarding claim 1, Yano discloses (see mainly figs. 1-4 and/or 5-8) a pressure equalization apparatus, comprising:
a grid-shaped housing (4) with a gas passage opening (mainly defined by 31 and 32) which connects an inner side (22) and an outer side (24) of the pressure equalization apparatus in a flow-conducting manner in a flow direction depending on a differential pressure, the gas passage opening being covered by an inner membrane (5), arranged toward the inner side, and an outer membrane (2), arranged toward the outer side, the inner membrane and the outer membrane being arranged in each case in a gas-permeable manner and in a functional series circuit with respect to one another (see fig. 2), and the inner membrane and the outer membrane being arranged at a spacing adjacently with respect to one another, as viewed in the flow direction between the inner side and the outer side (see fig. 2),
wherein a gas-permeable first protective structure is connected functionally upstream of the inner membrane on a side which faces the inner side, and/or wherein a gas-permeable second protective structure (tapered wall 32A in fig. 2; and/or labyrinthine structure forming channels 31, 33, 32B, 32C and 3 in fig. 6) is arranged in the spacing.
Regarding claim 2, Yano discloses the second protective structure (tapered surface 32A, see fig. 2) is formed by an annular collar (collar defined at 31C extending radially inwardly of vent hole 3) which delimits the gas passage opening (mainly defined by 31 and 32) on an outer peripheral side (outer side defined by passage 32).
Regarding claim 3, Yano discloses the collar (collar defined at 31C extending radially inwardly of vent hole 3) is of a funnel-shaped configuration (see tapered surface 32A).
Regarding claim 4, Yano discloses the second protective structure (labyrinthine structure forming channels 31, 33, 32B, 32C and 3 in fig. 6) is of a labyrinthine configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Yano discloses the housing (4) comprises a tough, polymeric material (“thermoplastic resin”; see specification col. 5, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Yano discloses the housing (4) and the outer membrane (2) are covered on the outer side by a cover (6).
Regarding claim 13, Yano discloses wherein the outer membrane (2) is of water-repellent configuration (see specification col. 4, lines 9-67) at least on a side which faces the outer side (24).
Regarding claim 14, Yano discloses the outer membrane (2) is of dust-repellent configuration (see specification col. 4, lines 9-67) at least on a side which faces the outer side (24).
Regarding claim 15, Yano discloses the inner membrane (5) is of oil-repellent configuration (see specification col. 5, lines 20-27) at least on a side which faces the inner side (22).
Regarding claim 16, Yano discloses a method, comprising: providing the pressure equalization apparatus for a machine housing (20); and receiving an oleiferous medium (“oil mist”; see abstract) in the pressure equalization apparatus.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rauter, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN116447306 (“Ling”).
Regarding claim 9, Rauter discloses the invention as claimed except for the housing comprising a tough, polymeric material.
However, Ling teaches employing a tough, polymeric material coating (hydrophobic coatings including fluorocarbon or polyurethane coatings) to form a housing (mainly defined by 415 and 440).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Rauter by forming the housing by employing a tough, polymeric material coating, as taught by Ling, to reduce adhesion of oil mist particles.
Regarding claim 10, Rauter discloses the invention as claimed except for wherein, on a side of the housing which faces the inner and outer membranes, the housing has an inner side which has an oleophobic coating.
Ling teaches a pressure equalization apparatus (see fig. 4), wherein, on a side (bottom side of housing) of a housing (mainly defined by 415 and 440) which faces inner (451 and/or 452) and outer (460) membranes, the housing has an inner side (inside defined by baffle structure 440/441) which has an oleophobic coating (baffles 440/441 are provided with oil-repellant coating; see English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Rauter by configuring on a side of the housing which faces the inner and outer membranes, the housing has an inner side which has an oleophobic coating, as taught by Ling, to reduce adhesion of oil mist particles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection(s) and/or 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, the pressure equalization apparatus, wherein the second protective structure and the inner and outer fastening projections are configured to merge in one piece into one another from the same material, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 8, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the pressure equalization apparatus, wherein the second protective structure, the inner and outer fastening projections and the housing are configured so as to merge in one piece into one another from the same material, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US2024/0040716 discloses a pressure equalizing device having first and second air permeable membranes separated by a spacing, and a housing having fastening protrusions. US6524361 and US2017/0187018 disclose a pressure equalizing device having a single air-permeable membrane. US5891223 discloses a vent filter having a first and second filtering material separated by a spacing. CN116293022, US5348570 and US4636446 discloses a venting device having a labyrinth structure upstream of a filtering structure. US10781994 discloses a ventilation member having a single air-permeable membrane and a housing, wherein the housing is coated with a water and oil repellant treatment to prevent clogging. US6521024 discloses a pressure equalizing device having a filtering structure disposed between two apertured plates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. 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.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753