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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
The documents submitted were considered that the documents included English and/or the Figures were understood by the examiner.
The examiner did not consider NPL Cite No. 1 because the documents was submitted in German.
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 1-17 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.
The claims are replete with 112(b) issues. The office has attempted to discuss many of the issues below. However, the office recommends that applicant review the claims in depth to ensure clarity.
Regarding claim 1, line 2, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the office regards the limitations following the phrase as being part of the claimed invention. See also claim 1, line 11.
Claim 1, line 6-10, recited, “the throttle member is designed as a throttle tongue which is attached to the holding structure with a proximal end section and which, starting from the proximal end section, projects into the throttle channel with a distal end section ending freely and divides same into two throttle channel sections following one another in a channel longitudinal direction”.
It is unclear and indefinite whether the proximal end section belongs to the throttle member or holding structure. For purposes of examination, the office regards the proximal end section as belonging to the throttle member.
It is unclear and indefinite what applicant intends by “divides same into two throttle channel sections following one another in a channel longitudinal direction”. For purposes of examination, the office regards the throttle member as dividing the throttle channel into an upstream section and a downstream section.
The term “rubber-elastic reversible deformation” as recited in claim 1, line 15, is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant intends to necessitate a material makeup of the throttle member or merely a type of deformation. Additionally, the term “rubber-elastic reversible deformation” is not a known term. For purposes of examination the office regards such recitation as necessitating that the throttle member may freely pivot within the throttle channel. Similar issues are presented in claims 6 and 9.
Claim 1, lines 16-17, necessitate that “the one or other of the two throttle channel sections.” It is unclear and indefinite whether applicant intends the throttle member to pivot into a single channel section or both throttle sections. For purposes of examination, the office interprets the throttle member as capable of pivoting into both throttle channels.
Claim 2 recites that, “the throttle tongue is adapted to the inner contour of the throttle channel (20) in terms of design”. The meaning of the phrase “in terms of design” is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of examination the office regards the throttle tongue as being appropriately designed so long as the tongue performs the functional language of claim 2.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "expediently" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See also claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15.
For purposes of examination, the office regards the limitations following the phrase as NOT being part of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites, “the holding frame has a rectangular cross-sectional contour at least on the inside”. It is unclear and indefinite to what structure “the inside” belongs.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the throttle tongue is attached to the holding frame with its proximal end section in an attachment area spaced apart from the two frame end faces”. It is unclear and indefinite whether the “attachment area” is a portion of the throttle tongue or holding frame.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For purposes of examination, the office regards the limitations following the phrase as NOT being part of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites, “it is designed as a throttle unit having the throttle tongue and the holding structure as integral components”. It is unclear and indefinite what structure the term “it” is referring.
In regards to claim 17, it is unclear and indefinite what structure applicant intends to positively recite because the claim does not follow typical drafting style. Additionally, the claim appear to be an independent claim, but begins with “The”.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 10-12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindner et al. (U.S. Patent 8,939,178), hereinafter “Lindner”.
In regards to claim 1, Lindner discloses a throttle device, comprising: a throttle member (30) which is arranged on a holding structure (12) and projects into a throttle channel (20) through which a pressurized fluid can flow and which is moved relative to the holding structure (12) in order to specify differently sized free flow cross-sections of the throttle channel (20), wherein the throttle member (30) is designed as a throttle tongue which is attached to the holding structure (12) with a proximal end section and which, starting from the proximal end section, projects into the throttle channel (20) with a distal end section ending freely and divides same into two throttle channel sections following one another in a channel longitudinal direction, wherein the throttle tongue can be pivoted into various pivot positions (30A, 30B) depending on the pressure difference prevailing between the two throttle channel sections, starting from a neutral position adopted in a pressure-balanced state between the two throttle channel sections, while changing the free flow cross-section of the throttle channel (20) with accompanying rubber-elastic reversible deformation in the direction of the one or other of the two throttle channel sections.
In regards to claim 2, the throttle tongue (30) is adapted to the inner contour of the throttle channel (20) in terms of design such that in the neutral position of the throttle tongue (30) there is a free flow cross-section of the throttle channel (20). See Fig. 3.
In regards to claim 3, the holding structure (12) is designed as a holding frame completely surrounding the periphery of the throttle channel (20), wherein the inner circumferential surface of the holding frame expediently forms a channel wall surface of the throttle channel (20), which together with the pivotable throttle tongue (30) limits the free flow cross-section of the throttle channel (20). See Fig. 1.
In regards to claim 4, the holding frame has a rectangular cross-sectional contour at least on the inside and expediently also on the outside, wherein the throttle tongue expediently has a rectangular outer contour as seen in the channel longitudinal direction of the throttle channel. See Fig. 1.
In regards to claim 5, the holding frame (12) is sleeve-shaped and extends between two opposite frame end faces (EF1, EF2), wherein the throttle tongue (30) is attached to the holding frame (12) with its proximal end section in an attachment area (AA) spaced apart from the two frame end faces (EF1, EF2).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 8, the throttle tongue (30) is designed in such a way that when it pivots from the neutral position, a degressive or linear or progressive change in the cross-section of the free flow cross-section of the throttle channel (20) occurs depending on the pressure difference between the two throttle channel sections. The office notes that as the throttle tongue pivots from the neutral position the cross-section area of the throttle channel progressively changes.
In regards to claim 10, the throttle unit is designed as an insert component which can be inserted or is inserted into a fluid channel (100A, 100B) of a fluid device for its utilization while assuming a use position.
In regards to claim 11, a fluid device (100), having at least one fluid channel (100A, 100B) designed for the flow of a pressurized fluid, which is at least partially designed as a throttle channel, which belongs to a throttle device, according to claim 1, associated with the fluid channel (100A, 100B), through which differently sized free flow cross-sections of the throttle channel can be specified.
In regards to claim 12, the throttle unit is designed as an insert component which can be inserted or is inserted into the fluid channel (100A, 110B) of the fluid device (100) for its utilization while assuming a use position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindner.
Lindner discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Lindner does not specifically disclose the material from which the throttle tongue is fabricated.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have constructed the throttle tongue from an elastomeric material, since it was within the general skill of a worker to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use and for the purpose of providing an inert valve member.
In regards to claim 9, Lindner does not specifically disclose that the throttle tongue and holding structure are integral components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the tongue and holding structure as integral components, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Further, integral fabrication would better ensure against independent component shifting during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753