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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner noticed that Applicant had filed a transmittal letter regarding an IDS, but the PTO-1449 form was missing. An interview was initiated and the Attorney agreed to resubmit the IDS.
Applicant’s information disclosure statement submitted on 04/07/2026 have been considered and is included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 15, change: “adjusting [[the]] an angular position…”
Claim 8, line 3, change: “with a corresponding guide bolt (14) protruding into each guide track (15).” This change is necessary since claim 5 introduces “a guide bolt (14)” and to provide consistency, a corresponding one of such guide bolt is provided in each guide track.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
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:
a. Claim 1 - “free-wheeling structure” read as a structure [means] for providing a free-wheeling rotation to pivot the fan blades.
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders:
a. Claim 1 – “structure”
coupled with functional language:
a. “for providing a free-wheeling rotation to pivot the fan blades”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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:
a. Corresponding structure is found in [0016] and [0030].
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
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 1-11 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 1 recites the limitation "their blade longitudinal axes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The use of the term “their” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the blades have multiple longitudinal blade axes or if each blade has a single blade longitudinal axis. As a suggestion, the claim may be amended as follows: “fan blades (3), each fan blade (3) pivotably mounting in a hub (4) about [[their]] a blade longitudinal [[axes]] axis (5),”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “an angular segment greater than 90°,” in line 2 and the claim also recites “in particular greater than 120°,” in lines 2-3 and further recites “preferably at least 150°” in line 3 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the longitudinal and drive axis (2)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the longitudinal and drive axis is the same axis or similar to the blade longitudinal axes recited in claim 1, or whether “the longitudinal and drive axis” refers to a new axis, or if “the longitudinal and drive axis (2)” refers to two axes (i.e., one longitudinal axis and one drive axis) in which case, each axis lacks antecedent basis. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarity of the limitation, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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.
The closest prior art of record is: Haegele et al. (US 2022/0099098 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haegele et al. discloses a fan wheel (1) that can be driven in only one direction of rotation, the fan wheel (1) including:
fan blades (2) pivotably mounted in a hub (4) about their blade longitudinal axes (5),
a drive flange (7) connected to the hub (4) via a limited free-wheeling structure (i.e., as shown in Fig. 4), the drive flange (7) can be coupled to a drive motor (8) to drive the fan wheel (1),
a planetary transmission ([0023]) in operative arrangement between the drive flange (7) and the fan blades (2),
an actuating adjusting body (10, [0022]) driven by the planetary transmission ([0022]) mounted relative to the hub (4) such that the actuating adjusting body (10) can carry out a limited relative rotational movement (i.e., free operating range, [0023]) relative to the hub (4) superimposed (superimposed, [0021]) on a rotary drive movement of the hub (4) in a limited free-wheeling range (i.e., free operating range, [0023]) of the free-wheeling structure (Fig. 4, [0021]-[0023]),
the actuating adjusting body (10) configured for adjusting the angular position of the fan blades (2, angular position of the blades, [0021]) during the limited relative rotational movement ([0022]),
characterized by a sun gear (22) of the planetary transmission ([0022]) connected in a rotationally fixed manner to the drive flange (7, as shown in Fig. 4),
wherein a toothing of the sun gear (22), with which the sun gear (22) meshes with planetary gears (21, [0023]) of the planetary transmission ([0022]), is arranged axially spaced from the drive flange (7, as shown in Fig. 4).
Haegele et al. does not specifically disclose or suggest wherein the sun gear (22) and the drive flange (7) are arranged on axially opposite end faces of the fan wheel (1). Fig. 4 shows that the sun gear (22) and the drive flange (7) are arranged on the same end face of the fan wheel (1).
Claims 2-11 would be allowable over the prior art of record due to their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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, COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 04/08/2026
Prosecution Insights