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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the chariot bolt, nylock nut, mounting plate, connector and ball valve must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltec in view of U. S. Patent 10,315,473 to Weflen, U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0112908 to Youman, U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0179279 to Morello, U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0070339 to Delgatty, U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0211091 to Carter and U. S. Patent Publication 2019/0249655 to Huang.
Referring to claim 1, Haltec teaches a tire system comprising:
a body comprised of: a wheel; a power inlet (the system must have a power input to provide power for at least the indicator); a gauge; an indicator light; a pneumatic control system; and a towing hitch (Haltec, Figure annotated below).
[AltContent: textbox (Towing Hitch (Lunette Ring))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pneumatic Control System)][AltContent: textbox (Secondary Pressure Gauge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Gauge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Indicator Light)][AltContent: textbox (First Indicator Light)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tool Box)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Panel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Crossbar Towing Brake)][AltContent: textbox (Hose)][AltContent: textbox (Valve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Connector)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pressure Pilot Line)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Wheel)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Body)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
390
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Haltec Figure.
Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation, the details of the deflation unit, the details of the pneumatic control system set pressure, the details of the towing hitch (though it appears to be a lunette ring as claimed), the details of the wheels, and does not teach a ¾” valve block or powder coating. Weflen teaches a tire inflation system comprising:
an air inlet (30); an air outlet (34); a control (42); an inflater (compressor); a venturi (12) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the inflator and venturi taught by Weflen in order to use reduce deflation time (Weflen col. 2 lines 14-16) and to allow the same system to inflate tires also (Weflen col. 6 lines 12-19).
Weflen further teaches that the inflater (compressor) is comprised of an OTR inflator (col. 1 lines 19-21). It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use the system taught by Haltec as an OTR inflator as taught by Weflen in order to service OTR vehicles. Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The recitation of the inflator being an OTR inflator is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Weflen does not teach a control system, a towing hitch, wheels, a ¾” valve block or powder coating. Youman teaches a system comprising:
a pneumatic control system configured to ensure that an open-air inflation cycle does not exceed 50 psi (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the pneumatic control system set pressure taught by Youman in order to prevent over pressurization of the system.
Youman does not teach a towing hitch, a ¾” valve block or powder coating and is silent as to the details of the wheels. Morello teaches a system wherein:
a hitch is a lunette ring towing hitch (Figures 1-5; paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the lunette ring towing hitch taught by Morello in order to use a hitch that is standard throughout the construction industry (paragraph [0029]).
Morello is silent as to the details of the wheels, and does not teach a ¾” valve block or powder coating. Delgatty teaches a system wherein:
a wheel is a shock-resistant tubeless rubber wheel (paragraph [0133]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the tires taught by Delgatty in order to use tires which allow for traversing a variety of terrains.
Delgatty does not teach a ¾” valve block inflator or powder coating. Carter teaches a system comprising:
a ¾” valve block (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the ¾” valve block taught by Carter in order to prevent leakage when the hose is disassembled and to use a size compatible with commonly available hoses (paragraph [0025]).
Carter does not teach powder coating. Huang teaches a system wherein:
a body is powder coated (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the Powder coating taught by Huang in order to use a protective layer which is environmentally safe and easy to apply (paragraph [0049]).
Referring to claim 3, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Delgatty, Carter and Huang teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation. Weflen further teaches a system further comprising:
a muffler (46) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
Referring to claim 4, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Delgatty, Carter and Huang teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation. Weflen further teaches a system further comprising:
a solenoid-actuated valve (36) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
Referring to claim 5, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Delgatty, Carter and Huang teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation. Weflen further teaches a system further comprising:
a pressure switch (38) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
Referring to claim 6, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Delgatty, Carter and Huang teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation. Weflen further teaches a system further comprising:
a pressure sensor (38) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
Claims 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltec in view of U. S. Patent 10,315,473 to Weflen, U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0112908 to Youman, U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0179279 to Morello, U. S. Patent Publication 2009/0199918 to Steinfels, U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0122292 to Etter and U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0211091 to Carter.
Referring to claim 7, Haltec teaches a tire system comprising:
a body comprised of: a wheel; a towing hitch; a power inlet (the system must have a power input to provide power for at least the indicator); a gauge; an indicator light; a pneumatic control system; and a hose comprised of a connector and a valve (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation and the details of the deflation unit, the pneumatic control system set pressure, and the details of the towing hitch (though it appears to be a lunette ring as claimed), and does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a ¾” valve block inflator. Weflen teaches a tire inflation system comprising:
an air inlet (30); an air outlet (34); a control (42); an inflater (compressor); a venturi (12) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the inflator and venturi taught by Weflen in order to use reduce deflation time (Weflen col. 2 lines 14-16) and to allow the same system to inflate tires also (Weflen col. 6 lines 12-19).
Weflen further teaches that the inflater (compressor) is comprised of an OTR inflator (col. 1 lines 19-21). It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use the system taught by Haltec as an OTR inflator as taught by Weflen in order to service OTR vehicles. Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The recitation of the inflator being an OTR inflator is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
Weflen does not teach a control system, a towing hitch, a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a ¾” valve block inflator. Youman teaches a system comprising:
a pneumatic control system configured to ensure that an open-air inflation cycle does not exceed 50 psi (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the pneumatic control system set pressure taught by Youman in order to prevent over pressurization of the system.
Youman does not teach a hitch, a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a ¾” valve block inflator. Morello teaches a system wherein:
a hitch is a lunette ring towing hitch (Figures 1-5; paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the lunette ring towing hitch taught by Morello in order to use a hitch that is standard throughout the construction industry (paragraph [0029]).
Morello does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a ¾” valve block inflator. Steinfels teaches a system comprising:
a bolt (310) nylock nut (312) mounting plate (304) attachable to a body (140b) (Fig. 8; paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the bolt nylock nut mounting plate attachable to the body taught by Steinfels in order to secure the body to a structure or support of some type.
Steinfels is silent as to what type of bolt is used and does not teach ¾” valve block inflator. Etter teaches a system comprising:
a chariot bolt (carriage bolt, carriage bolts are chariot bolts) (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the chariot bolts as taught by Etter into the device of Haltec, etc. above because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the chariot bolts of Etter, for another, the generically claimed bolts of Steinfels, to obtain predictable results, forming a bolted joint, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Etter does not teach ¾” valve block inflator. Carter teaches a system comprising:
a ¾” valve block (paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the ¾” valve block taught by Carter in order to prevent leakage when the hose is disassembled and to use a size compatible with commonly available hoses (paragraph [0025]).
Referring to claim 8, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Steinfels, Etter and Carter teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a system wherein:
the wheel is comprised of a crossbar towing brake (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Referring to claim 10, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Steinfels, Etter and Carter teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a threaded connection and appears to teach a thread-on valve core removal tool, but is otherwise silent as to a valve core removal tool. Weflen further teaches a tire inflation system comprising:
a valve core removal tool (18) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the valve core removal tool taught by Weflen in order to connect to OTR tires.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltec in view of U. S. Patent 10,315,473 to Weflen, U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0112908 to Youman, U. S. Patent Publication 2005/0179279 to Morello, U. S. Patent Publication 2009/0199918 to Steinfels, U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0122292 to Etter, U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0211091 to Carter and U. S. Patent 4,077,747 to Burenga.
Referring to claim 11, Haltec, Weflen, Youman, Morello, Steinfels, Etter and Carter teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 7, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches panels, but is silent as to the material of the panels. Weflen, Youman and Morello do not teach panels. Burenga teaches a system comprising:
steel panels (32, 35) (Figures 1-3; col. 5 line 42 - col. 6 line 3).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the steel panels taught by Burenga in order to use a material with adequate strength and rigidity (col. 5 line 42 - col. 6 line 3).
Claims 12, 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltec in view of U. S. Patent 10,315,473 to Weflen, U. S. Patent Publication 2023/0050997 to Justice, U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0112908 to Youman, U. S. Patent Publication 2002/0112758 to Xu, U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0070339 to Delgatty, U. S. Patent Publication 2009/0199918 to Steinfels, U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0122292 to Etter and U. S. Patent Publication 2004/0055641 to Ostrowiecki.
Referring to claim 12, Haltec teaches a tire system comprising:
a body comprised of: a wheel; a power inlet (the system must have a power input to provide power for at least the indicator); a tool box; a gauge; a first indicator light; a pneumatic control system; and a hose comprised of a connector and a valve (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Haltec is silent as to the system being used for inflation, the details of the inflation unit, the details of the pneumatic control system set pressure, the details of the wheels and the details of the connectors, what type of power is used (though the system must have a power input) and the material of the control system, and does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a connector comprising a ball valve. Weflen teaches a tire inflation system comprising:
an air inlet (30); an air outlet (34); a control (42); an inflater (compressor); a venturi (12) (Figures 1-4; col. 4 line 10-col. 6 line 33).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the inflator and venturi taught by Weflen in order to use reduce deflation time (Weflen col. 2 lines 14-16) and to allow the same system to inflate tires also (Weflen col. 6 lines 12-19).
Weflen is silent as to the details of the pneumatic control system set pressure, the details of the wheels and the details of the connectors, what type of power is used (though the system must have a power input) and the material of the control system, and does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a connector comprising a ball valve. Justice teaches a system comprising:
a battery (1) (fig. 1; paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the battery taught by Weflen in order to provide portable power to the system.
Justice is silent as to the details of the pneumatic control system set pressure, the details of the wheels and the details of the connectors, and the material of the control system, and does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a connector comprising a ball valve. Youman teaches a system comprising:
a 200 psi pneumatic control system configured to ensure that an open-air inflation cycle does not exceed 50 psi (paragraph [0051], wherein it is taught that the system can handle up to 250 psi and therefore can be configured as a 200 psi system).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the pneumatic control system set pressure taught by Youman in order to prevent over pressurization of the system.
Youman is silent as to the details of the wheels and the details of the connectors, and the material of the control system, and does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a connector comprising a ball valve. Xu teaches a control system comprising stainless steel (paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make the control system from stainless steel as taught by Xu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Xu is silent as to the details of the wheels and does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a connector comprising a ball valve. Delgatty teaches a system wherein:
a wheel is a shock-resistant tubeless rubber wheel (paragraph [0133]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the tires taught by Delgatty in order to use tires which allow for traversing a variety of terrains.
Delgatty does not teach a chariot bolt nylock nut mounting plate or a connector comprising a ball valve. Steinfels teaches a system comprising:
a bolt (310) nylock nut (312) mounting plate (304) attachable to a body (140b) (Fig. 8; paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the bolt nylock nut mounting plate attachable to the body taught by Steinfels in order to secure the body to a structure or support of some type.
Steinfels is silent as to what type of bolt is used and does not teach a connector comprising a ball valve. Etter teaches a system comprising:
a chariot bolt (carriage bolt, carriage bolts are chariot bolts) (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the chariot bolts as taught by Etter into the device of Haltec, etc. above because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the chariot bolts of Etter, for another, the generically claimed bolts of Steinfels, to obtain predictable results, forming a bolted joint, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Etter does not teach a connector comprising a ball valve. Haltec teaches the use of a hose and a valve stem connector and Weflen teaches an inlet and an outlet attachable to a hose, but are silent as to the details of a connector. Ostrowiecki teaches a system comprising:
a hose (“air hose”) attachable via a connector (10) comprising a ball valve (11, 112) (Fig. 6a; paragraphs [0080]-[0084]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the connector taught by Ostrowiecki in order to secure the hose and prevent leakage when disconnected.
Referring to claim 15, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter and Ostrowiecki teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a system comprising:
a second indicator light (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Referring to claim 19, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter and Ostrowiecki teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a system comprising:
a secondary pressure gauge (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Referring to claim 20, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter and Ostrowiecki teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a system comprising:
a pressure pilot line (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haltec in view of U. S. Patent 10,315,473 to Weflen, U. S. Patent Publication 2023/0050997 to Justice, U. S. Patent Publication 2022/0112908 to Youman, U. S. Patent Publication 2002/0112758 to Xu, U. S. Patent Publication 2021/0070339 to Delgatty, U. S. Patent Publication 2009/0199918 to Steinfels, U. S. Patent Publication 2007/0122292 to Etter, U. S. Patent Publication 2004/0055641 to Ostrowiecki and U. S. Patent Publication 2018/0128705 to Wetherill.
Referring to claim 13, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter and Ostrowiecki teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 12, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a system wherein:
the first indicator light is comprised of a red light (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Haltec does not teach what the indicator light is used for. Wetherill teaches a system wherein:
an indicator (510) is comprised of a red light that indicates that a stable pressure has exceeded a first threshold value (Fig. 5; paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the indicator that a stable pressure has exceeded a first threshold value taught by Wetherill in order to inform the user of the systems operating state.
Referring to claim 14, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter, Ostrowiecki and Wetherill teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 13, as detailed above. Haltec is silent as to the use of the indicator. However, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The recitation of the first threshold value being 5 psi is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a first threshold value of 5psi., as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different first threshold values solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different first threshold values.
Referring to claim 16, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter and Ostrowiecki teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 15, as detailed above, and Haltec further teaches a system wherein:
the second indicator light is comprised of a green light (Haltec, Figure annotated above).
Haltec does not teach what the indicator light is used for. Wetherill teaches a system wherein:
an indicator (520) is comprised of a green light that indicates that pressure is below a second threshold value (Fig. 5; paragraph [0079]).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the system taught by Haltec with the indicator that pressure is below a second threshold value taught by Wetherill in order to inform the user of the systems operating state.
Referring to claim 17, Haltec, Weflen, Justice, Youman, Xu, Steinfels, Etter, Ostrowiecki and Wetherill teach a system comprising all the limitations of claim 16, as detailed above. Haltec is silent as to the use of the indicator. However, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). The recitation of the second threshold value being 15 psi is a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use a second threshold value of 15psi., as an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that different first threshold values solve any stated problems or are for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with different first threshold values.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 10, 2026 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746