This is Non-Final office action for serial number 18/278,859.
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 § 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.
Claim 25 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the other flank" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 18-25, 28, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Diekmeyer 20080089759.
Diekmeyer discloses:
Claim 15. A thread of a screw connection between a first module and a second module (paragraphs 4-64 and Figure 1-5), comprising: a first screw thread profile (3) of a first connecting element of the first module (1); a second screw thread profile (2) of a second connecting element of the second module , wherein the first screw thread profile (3) is configured such that the first connecting element is suited to be screw-connected to the second connecting element, the first screw thread profile (3) has a reduced cross-sectional thread area in relation to a standardized screw thread profile (paragraph 0037, and See figure 5), the first screw thread profile is a female screw thread profile (3), the second screw thread profile is a male screw thread profile (2), the standardized screw thread profile is a buttress thread profile (Figure 4), the first screw thread profile is compatible with a standardized mail thread profile (paragraph 0040-0046), and the standardized male thread profile is a buttress thread profile (Figure 4).
Claim 18.The thread according to claim 15, wherein the second screw thread profile (2) is configured inverted to the first screw thread profile (3).
Claim 19. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first screw thread profile (3) of the first connecting element defines threads, each of said threads having a first flank (12), a flat crest region, and a second flank (13), and at least one non-rounded edge is formed between the first or second flank and the flat crest region.
Claim 20. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first screw thread profile (3) has a rounded root region formed between a first (12) and second flank (13).
Claim 21. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first screw thread profile (3) has a first (12) and a second flank (13), which are asymmetric.
Claim 22. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first screw thread profile (3) is configured to engage with the second screw thread profile (2) such that a non-rounded edge of the first screw thread profile (3) has a contact point, with a flank (14) of the second screw thread profile (2).
Claim 23. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first and/or second screw thread profile is configured as a modified V-shaped profile, such that the profile has an inverted crest region; and/or the first and/or second screw thread profile (3 and/or 2) is configured as a modified V- shaped profile, such that the profile has a broadened and/or deepened groove region (see figure 4).
Claim 24. The thread according to claim 23, wherein the modified V-shaped profile has a W-shaped or M-shaped thread profile (See figure 4).
Claim 25. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first (3) and/or second screw thread profile (2) is configured as a modified V- shaped profile, such that one flank (13) has a lower slope than the other flank (12).
Claim 28. The thread according to claim 15, wherein the first screw thread profile (3) is configured such that an internal thread height is larger than an external thread height of a corresponding standardized male thread profile (2) .
Claim 30. A cartridge (1) for connecting with a system, comprising: an air dryer cartridge (1) configured to be connectible with a pressurized air system (8); a threaded connector (2/30) by which the air dryer cartridge is connectible with the pressurized air system, wherein the air dryer cartridge has either a first (3) or second thread profile (2) of the threaded connector, and the first screw thread profile (3) has a reduced cross-sectional thread area in relation to a standardized screw thread profile; wherein the first screw thread profile is a female screw thread profile, the second screw thread profile is a male screw thread profile, the standardized screw thread profile is a buttress thread profile, the first screw thread profile is compatible with a standardized male thread profile, and the standardized male thread profile is a buttress thread profile.
Claim 31. A system, comprising: a first module (1); and a second module (8), wherein the first and second module are connectable by a screw connection using a first connecting element of the first module (1) and a second connecting element of the second module (8) ; a thread of the screw connection between the first module and he second module, comprising: a first screw thread profile (3); a second screw thread profile (2), wherein the first screw thread profile (3) is configured such that the first connecting element is suited to be screw-connected to the second connecting element, and the first screw thread profile (3) has a reduced cross-sectional thread area in relation to a standardized screw thread profile (see paragraph 0035-0043); wherein the first screw thread profile is a female screw thread profile (3), the second screw thread profile is a male screw thread profile (2), the standardized screw thread profile is a buttress thread profile (Figure 4), the first screw thread profile is compatible with a standardized male thread profile, and the standardized male thread profile is a buttress thread profile (Figure 4, since by definition a buttress threads resemble a sawtooth pattern wherein one flank (the load-bearing flank) is nearly perpendicular to the screw axis, while the other flank (the trailing flank) is slanted)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reduced thread area)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
682
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Slanted flank of 2nd screw male thread)][AltContent: textbox (Nearly Perpendicular flank of 2nd screw male thread)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slanted flank 1st screw female thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Nearly perpendicular flank 1st screw female thread)][AltContent: textbox (a buttress threads resemble a sawtooth pattern wherein one flank (the load-bearing flank) is nearly perpendicular to the screw axis, while the other flank (the trailing flank) is slanted)]
PNG
media_image2.png
442
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
2. Diekmeyer Does Not Disclose Each Claim Limitation
Diekmeyer does not disclose - either expressly or inherently - at least the following features recited in independent claim 15 (and similar features recited in independent claims 30 and 3 1):
the first screw thread profile is a female screw thread profile,
the second screw thread profile is a male screw thread profile,
the standardized screw thread profile is a buttress thread profile,
the first screw thread profile is compatible with a standardized male thread profile, and
the standardized male thread profile is a buttress thread profile
In the Office Action, it is stated in connection with former claim 16 that Diekmeyer discloses that "the first screw thread profile is a female screw thread profile (3), and the second screw thread profile is a male screw thread profile (2)." It is further stated in connection with former claim 17 that the standardized screw thread profile is "an ISO metric or a buttress thread profile." It is further stated in connection with former claim 26 that the first screw thread profile (3) is compatible with a standardized male thread profile, allegedly based on [0040]-[0046]. Finally, it is stated in connection with former claim 27 that the standardized male thread profile is "a metric ISO screw thread profile and/or a buttress thread profile."
That mapping, however, does not establish anticipation of the amended independent claims, because Applicants no longer claim the subject matter in the alternative. Rather, the amended independent claims now require the specific combination that: the first screw thread profile is a female screw thread profile; the second screw thread profile is a male screw thread profile; the standardized screw thread profile is a buttress thread profile; the first screw thread profile is compatible with a standardized male thread profile; and the standardized male thread profile is a buttress thread profile. Thus, what must be shown now is not merely that Diekrneyer discloses a female profile, a male profile, and compatibility with some standardized male thread profile. Instead, what must be shown is that the relied-upon teachings disclose compatibility specifically with a standardized male buttress thread profile, and that the standardized comparison profile is likewise specifically a buttress thread profile. Diekmeyer discloses no such configuration.
Most importantly, Diekmeyer expressly identifies the conventional standardized male thread relied upon for compatibility as a metric ISO standard thread, not a buttress thread. In [0043], it is stated that the female thread 30 "can be screwed not only into a male thread (20) configured according to the invention but also into a conventional metric ISO standard thread." In [0044], it is further stated that "male thread (22) is designed as a metric ISO standard thread with symmetric flanks (14, 15)." Thus, the very passage relied upon for compatibility teaches compatibility with a conventional metric ISO standard male thread. It does not disclose, and does not suggest in the relied-upon discussion, that the standardized male thread profile is a buttress thread profile.
Accordingly, even if it were accepted that Diekrneyer discloses that the first screw thread profile is female and the second screw thread profile is male, that still would not satisfy the amended claim language. The reason is that the present claims do not merely recite a female profile and a male profile. Rather, the present claims require a particular standardized benchmark and a particular compatibility relationship, both now limited to buttress. Diekmeyer's disclosure relied upon by the Examiner for compatibility is expressly directed to metric ISO compatibility. Therefore, the previous mapping to former claims 26 and 27 does not reach the narrower claim language now recited in each independent claim.
The same problem exists with respect to the limitation that "the standardized screw thread profile is a buttress thread profile." In the Office Action, that feature was previously mapped only in the alternative, namely, as "an ISO metric or a buttress thread profile." But an alternative mapping of "ISO metric or buttress" is not a showing that Diekrneyer discloses the now-required buttress thread profile. The rejection as written therefore does not identify where Diekmeyer discloses the specific buttress-thread requirement now affirmatively recited in the independent claims. Put differently, once Applicants amended the claims to remove the alternative and require buttress, the prior mapping no longer sufficed.
Further, the passages of Diekneyer actually relied upon in the Office Action do not describe a buttress-thread standard at all. Rather, they describe (i) an inventive male/female thread arrangement, and (ii) compatibility of the disclosed female thread with a conventional metric ISO standard thread. Figures 4 and 5, together with [0043]-[0045], are used in Diekmeyer to contrast the disclosed profile with a conventional metric ISO standard thread having symmetric flanks. That is fundamentally different from a disclosure that the standardized male profile itself is a buttress profile. Thus, the teachings relied upon by the Examiner do not read on the amended limitations as now written.
Moreover, the presently claimed subject matter is directed not merely to the existence of some standardized compatibility, but to the specific combination of a reduced-cross- sectional female screw thread profile together with compatibility with a standardized male buttress thread profile. The Office Action does not identify where Diekmeyer discloses or suggests that particular combination. To the contrary, the relied-upon compatibility disclosure in Diekmeyer is expressly tied to a conventional metric ISO standard thread. Thus, even if Diekmeyer were understood to disclose compatibility with a standardized male thread profile in a general sense, the Office Action still does not establish the now-claimed narrower and more specific compatibility with a standardized male buttress thread profile, much less in combination with the claimed reduced-cross-sectional first screw thread profile. The present claims are therefore directed to a more specific and more technically focused subject matter than that addressed by the prior rejection.
This is significant because the claimed combination provides concrete teclmical effects that are not established by the cited mapping. As discussed above, the claimed arrangement improves stress distribution while also preserving compatibility with standardized thread systems. In addition, by preserving compatibility in a modular cartridge or module environment, the claimed profile arrangement promotes adaptability and facilitates
assembly in existing systems. These effects arise from the specific combination now recited in the claims, not from a mere generic male/female thread arrangement. The relied-upon teachings in Diekrneyer do not establish that same combination and therefore do not establish those same claimed technical features.
That is, the previous rejection may have been directed to broader claim language that permitted an ISO metric or buttress standardized profile. The claims, however, have now been amended to require the narrower case, namely buttress. Because Diekmeyer is relied upon for compatibility with a metric ISO standardized male thread, and because the Office Action does not identify any teaching in Diekneyer of a standardized male buttress thread profile corresponding to the amended claim language, anticipation has not been established.
This point applies equally to all three independent claims, because the newly added limitations appear at the end of each independent claim and are the same in substance. Thus, regardless of whether Diekmeyer is alleged to disclose a thread, a cartridge, or a system, the rejection still must show the same newly recited profile relationship, namely: female first screw thread profile, male second screw thread profile, standardized screw thread profile being a buttress thread profile, compatibility with a standardized male thread profile, and that standardized male thread profile likewise being a buttress thread profile. The relied-upon mapping does not establish that Diekmeyer teaches that specific buttress-based combination.
Further, Diekmeyer renders the presently claimed subject matter obvious. Even assuming arguendo that Diekneyer discloses a female first screw thread profile, a male second screw thread profile, and compatibility with a standardized male thread profile in a general sense, there would have been no reason to modify Diekneyer to arrive at, the specific combined requirement now recited, namely compatibility with a standardized male buttress thread profile together with a standardized screw thread profile that is itself a buttress thread profile, in the context of the claimed reduced-cross-sectional first screw thread profile.
is hereby traversed in the following remarks. The applicant’s argument relies on one segment/section [0043-0045] within Diekmeyer’s disclosure that teaches of an embodiment of the prior art directed to a conventional metric ISO standard thread as evidence that Diemeyer does not disclose a buttress-thread however, that argument does not negate that fact Diekmeyer clearly shows within figure 4 that the threads of Diekmeyer are Buttress standardized type threads as shown in the below marked up figure 4. Buttress threads are defined as a sawtooth pattern are screw thread profiles with asymmetric shape, wherein one flank (the load-bearing flank) is nearly perpendicular to the screw axis, while the other flank (the trailing flank) is slanted as provided for clarification in the following marked up Figure 4 therefore meeting the applicant’s claimed invention of a standardized Buttress reduced cross-section thread profiles.
[AltContent: textbox (Slanted flank of 2nd screw male thread)][AltContent: textbox (Nearly Perpendicular flank of 2nd screw male thread)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Reduced cross section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reduced cross-section)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Slanted flank 1st screw female thread)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Nearly perpendicular flank 1st screw female thread)]
PNG
media_image2.png
442
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reduced thread area)]
PNG
media_image1.png
682
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights