DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). No certified copy of the priority document has been received.
As such, Claims 1 – 6 are only entitled to an effective filing date of November 24, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3A – 3C all depict the same configuration despite Paragraphs 33 and 44 disclosing that different configurations are shown. The priority document clearly shows Figure 3 as depicting different configurations. Applicant may correct the drawings to those shown in the priority document without invoking a new matter objection.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (Lines 12, 18, 19) changes from particle filter to particulate filter and back to particle filter. One of these terms should be chosen and consistently used in the claims.
Claim 1, Line 5: pressure inlet pipe should be corrected to first pressure inlet pipe.
Claim 1, Line 10: built up in it should be corrected to built up in the second pressure inlet pipe opening.
Claim 1, Line 17 recites are matched to one another. The term “match” is inappropriate for what applicant is trying to claim. No “matching” is occurring. Paragraph 23 of the spec discloses that the parameters are “coordinated in such a way that the differential pressure…”. Examiner believes this phrasing is more appropriate and contextually correct.
Claim 1, Line 20: so that it should be corrected to so that the housing…
Claim 3 has an element labeled in parentheses when no other element in the claims does. This may be an unintentional holdover from the priority document.
Claim 6 recites the tubular hosing is adjustable and fixable to thus adjust different differential pressures. The term “adjust” is inappropriate in the context. Claim 25 of the spec discloses that “the position and/or orientation of the first or second pressure inlet pipe in the tubular housing can be adjusted and fixed in order to set different differential pressures”. Examiner believes this phrasing is more appropriate and contextually correct.
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.
Claims 1 – 6 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.
Claim 1, Line 4 recites the opening. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because this term lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting an opening.
Claim 1, Line 8 recites the opening. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because this term lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting an opening.
Claim 1, Line 12 recites …the tubular housing which can be connected to a particle filter…The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because it is unclear whether what follows the phrase “can be” is required or merely optional. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “is” replacing “can be”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, Line 17 recites the differential pressure. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because this term lacks antecedent basis. It has not been established that the filter control unit measures a differential pressure using the first and second pressure inlet. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as described above.
Claim 1, Line 21 recites the first pressure inlet pipe has an opening. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because Claim 1 already introduces an opening for the first pressure inlet pipe in Line 4, making it unclear whether this instance introduces another opening. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the same opening as previously introduced in Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the second pressure inlet pipe has an opening. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because Claim 1 already introduces an opening for the second pressure inlet pipe, making it unclear whether the instance in Claim 3 introduces another opening. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as referring to the same opening as introduced in Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the axis. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because this term lacks antecedent basis because an axis is introduced in Claim 2, which is not in the dependency tree of Claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the first or second pressure inlet pipe within the housing has a bend which is in the range of 0 to 90 degrees so as to be directed against the exhaust gas flow or with the exhaust gas flow. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because this language allows for an inconsistency with Claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the first pressure inlet pipe opening is directed against the direction of the exhaust gas flow. A range of 0 degree bend would not bend against the flow as required by Claim 1, nor would a bend in the direction of the exhaust gas flow.
All other pending claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence on one of the rejected claims above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 6 would be allowable if rewritten 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.
Additional References
Please see attached PTO-892 form for additional references which are made of record but not relied upon for the current grounds of rejection.
Zhang (US 7546765) – see Figures 3, 4, DPF 109 having pressure differential pipes upstream (at 205) and downstream (at 305) thereof, with the opening of each pipe being directed in the direction of the exhaust gas flow.
Laermann et al. (US 2011/0061367) – see Figure 8, inlet opening 255 of pressure differential pipe is directed against the flow of exhaust gas such that exhaust gas flow presses into the opening.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Monday, August 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights