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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 29 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Gagala (US 3930517).
Regarding Claim 1, Gagala discloses a valve for a gas tank (Figures 1-4; Col 1, lines 12-19). The valve comprising:
a body (10 generally) comprising:
an engaging portion (20) for sealingly engaging with a gas tank (at 18),
a gas inlet (56),
a gas outlet (36), and
a gas passage fluidly connecting the gas inlet and the gas outlet (Figure 2);
a shut-off device (42) in the gas passage (Figure 2);
a check-valve (65 and 80) comprising:
a check-valve seat (65) in the gas passage (Figure 2);
a check-valve obturator (80) configured for contacting the check-valve seat (Figure 3);
wherein the check-valve seat (65) is resiliently urged against the body (via 64; Figure 3);
but fails to expressly disclose where the check valve obturator is configured to contact the check valve seat to close the gas passage in the presence of a refill gas flow from the gas outlet to the gas inlet; wherein the check-valve seat is configured to move away from the body so as to open the gas passage when subjected solely to a refill differential pressure reaching a predetermined threshold.
However, Gagala discloses where the check valve seat is configured to close the gas passage in the presence of a refill gas flow from the gas outlet to the gas inlet (shown in Figure 2); wherein the check-valve obturator is configured to move away from the check valve seat so as to open the gas passage when subjected solely to a refill differential pressure reaching a predetermined threshold (Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator to be reversed since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the valve parts based on user defined criteria, such as accommodating the bias or providing a bias to the optimal strength.
Regarding Claim 2, Gagala discloses where the gas passage extends longitudinally in the body (from 42 to 84), but fails to expressly disclose where the check-valve seat being configured for opening the gas passage in a radial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas passage to extend in the radial direction since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the gas passage based on user defined criteria, such as accommodating dispersion of the gas to the sides of the gas tank.
Regarding Claim 3, Gagala discloses where the check-valve seat (65) is movable longitudinally (Figures 3-4).
Regarding Claim 4, Gagala discloses where the check-valve seat (65) comprises a cylindrical sleeve (Figure 3) slidingly received in a housing (54) attached to the body (at 24; Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Gagala discloses wherein the check-valve (65 and 80) comprises a spring (64) located in the housing (54) and resiliently urging the check-valve seat against the body (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Gagala discloses where the check-valve seat (65) comprises a hole forming the gas passage through the check-valve seat (and into which check valve obturator 80 sits as seen in Figure 3), to be closed by the check-valve obturator (80; Figure 3).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagala (US 3930517) in view of Brinkley et al (US 4,077,422).
Regarding Claim 6, Gagala discloses where the housing (54) comprises a cylindrical wall (Figure 3) but fails to expressly disclose radial passages for the refill gas flow.
Brinkley et al teach a check valve (60 generally) with a housing (62) where the housing comprises a cylindrical wall (65) with radial passages for the refill gas flow (between 65; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gagala with the housing as taught by Brinkley et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the housing of Brinkley et al with the system of Gagala) to yield predictable results (to allow fluid communication between the gas inlet and the gas outlet).
Regarding Claim 7, Brinkley et al teach where the radial passages are closed by the cylindrical sleeve (via the seals at 88) when the check-valve seat is against the body (Figure 4) and are opened when the check-valve seat is moved away from the body (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Brinkley et al disclose where the cylindrical wall of the housing (28) comprises a thread engaging with a corresponding thread on the body (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Gagala disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the check-valve seat comprises a gasket contacting in a gas tight fashion an inner surface of the body, when the check-valve seat is resiliently urged against the body, the gasket being away from the inner surface of the body when the check-valve seat is moved away from the body.
Brinkley et al teach where the check-valve seat (60) comprises a gasket (70) contacting in a gas tight fashion an inner surface of the body (Figure 2), when the check-valve seat is resiliently urged against the body (by 66), the gasket being away from the inner surface of the body when the check-valve seat is moved away from the body (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gagala with the gasket as taught by Brinkley et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the gasket of Brinkley et al with the system of Gagala) to yield predictable results (to close fluid communication between the gas inlet and the gas outlet).
Regarding Claim 11, Gagala disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose where the check-valve seat comprises an outer surface with longitudinal recesses extending from the gasket towards the shut-off device.
Brinkley et al teach where the check-valve seat (58) comprises an outer surface with longitudinal recesses (72) extending from the gasket towards the shut-off device (within 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gagala with the system as taught by Brinkley et al for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the check valve of Brinkley et al with the system of Gagala) to yield predictable results (to allow interaction between the shut-off valve and the tank).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gagala (US 3930517) in view of Carter (US 2005/0103382).
Regarding Claim 16, Gagala disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but is moot to where the predetermined threshold is comprised between 8 and 17 bar.
Carter teaches a gas cylinder (Figure 1) with a pressure range of between 8 and 17 bar (¶ 6 teaches 7 to 350 bar which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range and therefore reads on the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gagala with the system as taught by Carter for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (the pressure range of Carter with the system of Gagala) to yield predictable results (to provide operation of the gas system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to reverse the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator in response to the rejection of Claim 1.
First Applicant argues that reversal of the locations of the check valve seat and the check valve would result in the check valve seat being unable to move away from the body to open the gas passage as required by the Claims. However, as recited above, the check valve obturator would not be relocated without also reversing the check valve seat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator to be reversed since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the valve parts based on user defined criteria, such as accommodating the bias or providing a bias to the optimal strength. Therefore, the check valve obturator would still be located within the check valve seat, with the check valve obturator configured to contact the check valve seat to close the gas passage in the presence of a refill gas flow from the gas outlet to the gas inlet; wherein the check-valve seat is configured to move away from the body so as to open the gas passage when subjected solely to a refill differential pressure reaching a predetermined threshold. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that if the inversion is intended to correspond to an inversion of the check valve seat with regard to the body element forming the axial bore 56 and the corresponding valve seat 68, such an inversion is not realistic and therefore not obvious because it would totally impair the functioning of the residual pressure device. However, as recited above, the check valve obturator would not be relocated without also reversing the check valve seat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator to be reversed since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the valve parts based on user defined criteria, such as accommodating the bias or providing a bias to the optimal strength. Therefore, the check valve obturator would still be located within the check valve seat, with the check valve obturator configured to contact the check valve seat to close the gas passage in the presence of a refill gas flow from the gas outlet to the gas inlet; wherein the check-valve seat is configured to move away from the body so as to open the gas passage when subjected solely to a refill differential pressure reaching a predetermined threshold. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further, Applicant argues that such an inversion would require relocation of a spring with no structure onto which an additional spring could rest. However, this argument is also unpersuasive as the modification of the opening direction of the check valve seat and the check valve obturator would remain with the element 54 and would be provided with the support of the bottom end cap of the element 54 within the system as shown in Figure 3. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant also argues that modifying the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator to be reversed would prevent the finger 96 from operating to manually open the gas passage. However, this argument is unpersuasive, because the gas passage would still be able to be manually opened via the opening of the relocated check valve seat. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that a PHOSITA would have no motivation to make the proposed modification since the proposed modification to arrive at Claim 1 would require substantial modifications, including the use and accommodation of an additional spring, a substantial extension of the body, and additional adaptations that go far beyond routine skill in the art. However, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator to be reversed since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide an optimal arrangement of the valve parts based on user defined criteria, such as accommodating the bias or providing a bias to the optimal strength. The modification would merely reverse the opening directions of the check valve seat and the check valve obturator, with the check valve apparatus remaining supported within the element 54 and able to be manually operated to open the passage. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Last, Applicant argues that a proposed modification that would render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose teaches away from the modification and weighs against a finding of obviousness. As discussed above, modifying the locations of the check valve seat and check valve obturator to be reversed would merely reverse the opening directions of the check valve seat and the check valve obturator, with the check valve apparatus remaining supported within the element 54 and able to be manually operated to open the passage, thereby having no substantial modifications that would impact the function of the prior art. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM EST.
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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights