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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-12, and 15-19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (U.S. Publication 2021/0285556) in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent 1,005,581) as evidenced by Mainquist et al. (U.S. Patent 5,829,560), hereinafter “Mainquist”.
In regards to claims 1, 8 and 18, Quintana discloses pneumatic valve for a tire having a stem fluidly coupled to a pressure vessel, the pneumatic valve comprising: a core body (402) configured to removably couple to the stem (450a), the core body (402) having an interior passageway in fluid communication with the stem (450a); a cap member (410) coupled to the core body (402), the cap member (410) having a concavity (413) on an outer diameter and a bore hole (414) extending from one end, the bore hole (414) being in selective fluid communication with the interior passageway, the cap member (410) having an interior portion, the core body (402) being at least partially disposed in the interior portion; a valve seat (416) disposed in the interior portion between the core body (402) and the cap member (410); a sealing plug (420) moveably disposed at least partially in the interior passageway and at least partially within the bore hole (414); and a biasing member (425) disposed in the interior passageway and arranged to bias the sealing plug (420) against the valve seat (416) in a direction away from the stem.
Quintana does not specifically disclose that the sealing plug has a middle portion with a conical surface and a pin portion that extends from an end of the conical surface into the bore hole, the pin portion sized and dimensioned to be received into an inflation pin of a pump head.
However, Stewart teaches a tire valve wherein a sealing plug has a middle portion (16). with a conical surface and a pin portion (21) that extends from an end of the conical surface (16) into a bore hole (5), the pin portion (21) sized and dimensioned to be received into an inflation pin of a pump head such that the inflation pin engages the conical surface when the pin portion is received into the inflation pin wherein the conical surface (16) of the middle portion seats against a valve seat (7) wherein the middle portion of the sealing plug is configured to seal the interior passageway.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have replaced the sealing plug of Quintana with the sealing plug of Stewart to ensure that the valve was properly guided into its valve seat as evidenced by Mainquist (col. 3, lines 32-40).
As combined, it is the office’s position that the conical surface of the middle portion seats against the valve seat, wherein the middle portion of the sealing plug is configured to seal the interior passageway. Further, the office notes that Stewart teaches a valve, like applicant, wherein the conical portion of the valve extends into a fluid pathway upstream of the valve seat and the pin portion also extends into the fluid pathway. Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the valve is configured such that the pin portion is configured to be received into an inflation pin of a pump head such that the inflation pin engages the conical surface when the pin portion is received into the inflation pin.
In regards to claim 4, Quintana discloses that the cap member (410) is coupled to the core body (402) by a fastener element (threads).
In regards to claims 7, 15, and 18 the concavity (413) on the cap member (410) is a continuous curved surface with a concave radius sized and dimensioned to receive a semi-hemispherical surface of the pump head. The office notes that neither claim 1 nor claim 7 positively recite a pump head. Accordingly features of the pump head recited in claim 7 are non-limiting.
In regards to claim 8, Quintana discloses that the adapter system is utilized in conjunction with a valve stem and existing pneumatic valve systems (Presta, Dunlop or Schrader). See para. [0107]. Quinta further discloses that the type of valve systems are utilized with tires. See paras. [0002] – [0004].
In regards to claims 9 and 11, Stewart teaches that an end of the pin portion (21) extends through the bore hole (5) when the middle portion is biased against the valve seat (7).
In regards to claims 10 and 12, Stewart teaches that an end of the pin portion (21) is flush with the bore hole (5) when the middle portion is biased against the valve seat (7).
In regards to claim 16, the valve stem is one of a Presta-type, a Schrader-type, or a Dunlap-type configuration (para. [0107]).
In regards to claim 17, Quintana discloses that the pressure vessel is one of a tubeless tire coupled to a rim or an inner-tube. See para. [0009] which discloses that the system may be used with inner tubes.
In regards to claim 18, Quintana, as modified further discloses that an inner diameter of the valve seat (416) is smaller than a diameter of the bore hole (414) and that the sealing plug pin portion has a third diameter which is smaller than the valve seat diameter. See Quintana para. [0111] and Fig. 12B.
In regards to claim 19, Quintana further discloses a rim gasket (RG) coupled to an end of the valve stem opposite the cap member, the rim gasket configured to seal against at least a portion of the tire.
PNG
media_image1.png
1246
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (U.S. Publication 2021/0285556) in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent 1,005,581) as evidenced by Mainquist et al. (U.S. Patent 5,829,560), hereinafter “Mainquist” and further in view of Abrams (U.S. Publication 2002/0007847).
Quintana discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
In regards to claim 2, Quintana does not specifically disclose that the cap member is coupled to the core body by a press fit. However, Abrams teaches a fluid transfer system wherein an outer member (50) is press fit over an inner member (92), wherein a wall of the outer member (50) fits within a channel on an outside wall of the inner member (92).
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 coupling of to have a barbed press fit to prevent inadvertent disassembly as illustrated by Abrams.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (U.S. Publication 2021/0285556) in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent 1,005,581) as evidenced by Mainquist et al. (U.S. Patent 5,829,560), hereinafter “Mainquist” and further in view of Batista et al. (U.S. Patent 5,713,386), hereinafter “Batista”.
Quintana discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Quintana does not specifically disclose that an outer wall of the cap member includes a plurality of ring projections. However, Batista teaches a valve cap member (3) with a plurality of ring projections (32).
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 cap member of Quintana to include a plurality of ring projections to facilitate coupling of an air supply as taught by Batista (col. 3, lines 24-27)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (U.S. Publication 2021/0285556) in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent 1,005,581) as evidenced by Mainquist et al. (U.S. Patent 5,829,560), hereinafter “Mainquist” and further in view Lin (U.S. Patent 5,816,284).
Quintana, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Quintana does not specifically disclose that the exterior of the cap member includes threads.
However, Lin teaches a tire valve extension member (2) which includes threads (21) along an outer surface.
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 cap member of Quintana to include threads to facilitate the attachment of a valve cap and/or an alternative structure for attaching an input supply.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintana (U.S. Publication 2021/0285556) in view of Stewart (U.S. Patent 1,005,581) as evidenced by Mainquist et al. (U.S. Patent 5,829,560), hereinafter “Mainquist” and further in view of Abrams (U.S. Publication 2002/0007847) and Lin (U.S. Patent 5,816,284).
Quintana discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Quintana does not specifically disclose that the cap member is coupled to the core body by a press fit. However, Abrams teaches a fluid transfer system wherein an outer member (50) is press fit over an inner member (92), wherein a wall of the outer member (50) fits within a channel on an outside wall of the inner member (92).
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 coupling of to have a barbed press fit to prevent inadvertent disassembly as illustrated by Abrams.
Quintana does not specifically disclose that the exterior of the cap member includes a surface roughness element (i.e. threads).
However, Lin teaches a tire valve extension member (2) which includes threads (21) along an outer surface.
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 cap member of Quintana to include threads to facilitate the attachment of a valve cap and/or an alternative structure for attaching an input supply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a lack of motivation to combine Quintana and Stewart in light of the operation of the valve head taught by Stewart. However, as discussed above, the office is not drawing on the complete operation of the valve assembly of Stewart, but rather the valve head itself for the purpose of valve head centering as evidenced by Mainquist et al. (U.S. Patent 5,829,560).
To the extent that the valve system of Stewart operates in a manner different from Quintana, the office notes, that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “that the pin portion is configured to be received into the inflation pin of a pump head such that the inflation pin engages the conical surface when the pin portion is received into the inflation pin”, emphasis added) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
To begin, the office notes that such recitation is functional and does not positively recite an inflation pin or pump head. As such, the prior art must merely be capable of functioning as recited by the functional language. In the instant case, as discussed above, the sealing plug is arranged within the valve as necessitated by the claim (and illustrated by applicant). Accordingly, it is the office’s position that the sealing plug is capable of providing the recited function at least to the extent necessitated by the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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