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 .
Examination Note
Applicant’s first amendment after the Non-Final Rejection (dated 07/08/2025) was received on 10/06/2025. Applicant’s 10/06/2025 amendment included amendments to the Specification. Applicant was notified on 10/31/2025, that the 10/06/2025 amendment was non-compliant.
Applicant submitted a supplemental amendment on 12/31/2025 which stated, “[t]his submission is responsive to the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 7, 2025 and supersedes the Applicants' prior response dated October 31, 2025.” The 12/31/2025 submission did not include any amendments to the Specification.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the amendments to the specification were intended to be included. For purposes of examination, the Specification amendment will NOT be entered. The office further notes that the Specification amendment received on 10/06/2025 included new matter. Namely, proposed paras. [00024A] and [00032A] include subject matter which was not present in the originally filed application.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/31/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, para. (d), recites “predetermined angular offsets of not more than 10 degrees associated with discrete axial positions of the pressure-adjusting cap corresponding to different tire-deflation pressures”. The office cannot find support with applicant’s originally filed disclosure that angular offsets are limited to “not more than 10 degrees”.
Claim 1, para. (e), recites “defining a spacing dimension within ± 1 mm between the pressure-adjusting cap and a fixed reference surface on the deflator body”. The office cannot find support with applicant’s originally filed disclosure that a spacing dimension is limited to “± 1 mm between the pressure-adjusting cap and a fixed reference surface on the deflator body”.
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 is 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 term “non-flexible” in claim 1(c) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “non-flexible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Accordingly it is unclear and indefinite what type of material is captured by the claim. The term “non-flexible” adds additional uncertainty when used in conjunction with materials such as aluminum and steel which are known to be flexible materials.
The term “rigid” in claim 1(c) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Accordingly it is unclear and indefinite what type of polymer is captured by the claim.
Examination Note re. 112(b) rejections: The office notes that the patentability of applicant’s invention does not hinge on the use of the terms “non-flexible” and “rigid”. Accordingly, it is the office’s opinion that the terms may be removed from the claim without impacting patentability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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