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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in paragraph [0071] of the description: 371.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) in Fig. 15 not mentioned in the description: 331.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: In paragraph [0065], the term “one-way check valve 25” should be replaced with -- one-way check valve 295 -- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “in fluid communication the an inlet of the valve” in both claims 12 and 20 should be replaced with a phrase, such as -- in fluid communication with an inlet of the valve -- for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 6, 11, and 19 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a second led” renders the claim indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a first led in a claim from which claim 6 depends.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a second one-way check valve” renders the claim indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a first one-way check valve in a claim from which claim 11 depends.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a second one-way check valve” renders the claim indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a first one-way check valve in a claim from which claim 19 depends.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mittal (US 2006/0180256 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mittal discloses a system for inflating vehicle tires (Abstract) comprising: a valve 24 positionable between an opened and a closed position (paragraph [0022]); a pneumatic pathway 12, 12a having a pressure value and in fluid communication with an outlet of the valve and an input of a pressure switch (Figure; paragraph [0021]); a vehicle tire 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d in fluid communication with the pneumatic pathway (Figure; paragraph [0021]); and the pressure switch configured to actuate the valve to the opened position when the pressure value of the pneumatic pathway drops below a threshold value (paragraph [0021]); and wherein an inlet of the valve is configured to be in fluid communication with an air tank 32 implicitly having a pressure value (Figure; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Mittal further discloses the air tank in fluid communication with the inlet of the valve (Figure; paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Mittal further discloses a second one-way check valve 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d positioned between an outlet of the valve and the tire (Figure); and wherein the second one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the tire into the pneumatic pathway (evident from Figure).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Beverly et al. (US 2008/0066533 A1; hereinafter “Beverly”).
Regarding claims 2-4, Mittal fails to expressly disclose the pressure value of the air tank being configured to be greater than the threshold value that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi.
Beverly, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires in which the pressure valve of the air tank 62, 64 can be configured to be greater than the threshold value (paragraph [0041]) that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that the pressure value of the air tank is configured to be greater than the threshold value that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi, such as taught by Beverly, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring that the tires can be quickly inflated to a desired pressure for their intended use.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Bartos (US 4,705,090) and Therber et al. (US 2014/0261939 A1; hereinafter “Therber”).
Regarding claim 5, although Mittal further discloses a power switch 20, Mittal fails to expressly disclose a first led configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration and a second led configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated.
Bartos, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires in which a built-in indicator light of the power switch (on-off switch 140) is configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration (lines 24-26 of col. 8) and a corresponding indicator light 154 of the pressure switch 152 is configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated (lines 40-42 of col. 8).
Therber further teaches the use of LED lights for indicator lights in a tire inflation system (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that a first indicator light is configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration and a second indicator light is configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated, such as taught by Bartos, with a reasonable expectation of success in alerting an operator regarding the status of the tire inflation system. Furthermore, to have used LED lights for the indicator lights of Bartos, such as taught by Therber, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing energy use while providing a longer lifespan for the indicator lights.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Mason (US 5,647,927).
Mittal fails to expressly disclose an engine, and an air compressor configured to receive power from the engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank.
Mason, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes an engine (line 67 of col. 2), and an air compressor 12 configured to receive power from the engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank 9 (Figure; lines 66-67 of col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that it includes an air compressor configured to receive power from an engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank, such as taught by Mason, as a well-known arrangement for powering the air compressor that would have a reasonable expectation of success of ensuring the air tank can be provided with a desired pressure value for inflating the tires.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Hoffman (US 2007/0214963 A1).
Mittal fails to disclose a first one-way check valve positioned between an outlet of the air tank and the inlet of the valve; and wherein the first one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the inlet of the valve into the air tank.
Hoffman, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes a first one-way check valve 26 positioned between an outlet of the air tank 18 and the inlet of the valve 21; and wherein the first one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the inlet of the valve into the air tank (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0020], [0021] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that it includes a first one-way check valve positioned between an outlet of the air tank and the inlet of the valve, such as taught by Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing backwards flow of air from the inlet of the valve to the air tank.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Dunst et al. (US 2023/0092710 A1; hereinafter “Dunst”).
Mittal fails to expressly disclose an air passageway having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank and the inlet of the valve.
Dunst, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes an air passageway (unlabeled elbow fitting for third port 120 shown in Fig. 3) having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank (not shown “air tank” coupled to third port 120 as described in paragraph [0052]) and the inlet of the valve 95 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that it includes an air passageway having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank and the inlet of the valve, such as taught by Dunst, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the air passageway to be fit into confined areas if needed and/or desired.
Claims 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Beverly, Bartos and Therber.
Regarding claims 12-15, Mittal discloses a system for inflating vehicle tires (Abstract) comprising: a valve 24 positionable between an opened and a closed position (paragraph [0022]); a pneumatic pathway 12, 12a having a pressure value and in fluid communication with an outlet of the valve and an input of a pressure switch (Figure; paragraph [0021]); a vehicle tire 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d in fluid communication with the pneumatic pathway (Figure; paragraph [0021]); and the pressure switch configured to actuate the valve to the opened position when the pressure value of the pneumatic pathway drops below a threshold value (paragraph [0021]); an air tank 32 implicitly having a pressure value and in fluid communication with an inlet of the valve (Figure; paragraph [0020]); and a power switch 20.
Mittal fails to expressly disclose the pressure value of the air tank being configured to be greater than the threshold value that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi.
Beverly, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires in which the pressure valve of the air tank 62, 64 can be configured to be greater than the threshold value (paragraph [0041]) that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that the pressure value of the air tank is configured to be greater than the threshold value that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi, such as taught by Beverly, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring that the tires can be quickly inflated to a desired pressure for their intended use.
Mittal also fails to expressly disclose a first led configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration and a second led configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated.
Bartos, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires in which a built-in indicator light of the power switch (on-off switch 140) is configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration (lines 24-26 of col. 8) and a corresponding indicator light 154 of the pressure switch 152 is configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated (lines 40-42 of col. 8).
Therber further teaches the use of LED lights for indicator lights in a tire inflation system (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that a first indicator light is configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration and a second indicator light is configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated, such as taught by Bartos, with a reasonable expectation of success in alerting an operator regarding the status of the tire inflation system. Furthermore, to have used LED lights for the indicator lights of Bartos, such as taught by Therber, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing energy use while providing a longer lifespan for the indicator lights.
Regarding claim 19, Mittal further discloses a second one-way check valve 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d positioned between an outlet of the valve and the tire (Figure); and wherein the second one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the tire into the pneumatic pathway (evident from Figure).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Beverly, Bartos and Therber, as applied to claims 12 and 15 above, and further in view of Mason.
Mittal, as modified by Beverly, Bartos and Therber, fails to expressly disclose an engine, and an air compressor configured to receive power from the engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank.
Mason, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes an engine (line 67 of col. 2), and an air compressor 12 configured to receive power from the engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank 9 (Figure; lines 66-67 of col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal, as modified by Beverly, Bartos and Therber, so that it includes an air compressor configured to receive power from an engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank, such as taught by Mason, as a well-known arrangement for powering the air compressor that would have a reasonable expectation of success of ensuring the air tank can be provided with a desired pressure value for inflating the tires.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Beverly, Bartos and Therber, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hoffman.
Mittal, as modified by Beverly, Bartos and Therber, fails to disclose a first one-way check valve positioned between an outlet of the air tank and the inlet of the valve; and wherein the first one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the inlet of the valve into the air tank.
Hoffman, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes a first one-way check valve 26 positioned between an outlet of the air tank 18 and the inlet of the valve 21; and wherein the first one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the inlet of the valve into the air tank (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0020], [0021] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal, as modified by Beverly, Bartos and Therber, so that it includes a first one-way check valve positioned between an outlet of the air tank and the inlet of the valve, such as taught by Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing backwards flow of air from the inlet of the valve to the air tank.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Beverly, Bartos and Therber, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Dunst.
Mittal, as modified by Beverly, Bartos and Therber, fails to expressly disclose an air passageway having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank and the inlet of the valve.
Dunst, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes an air passageway (unlabeled elbow fitting for third port 120 shown in Fig. 3) having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank (not shown “air tank” coupled to third port 120 as described in paragraph [0052]) and the inlet of the valve 95 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal, as modified by Beverly, Bartos and Therber, so that it includes an air passageway having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank and the inlet of the valve, such as taught by Dunst, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the air passageway to be fit into confined areas if needed and/or desired.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal in view of Beverly, Bartos, Therber, Mason, Hoffman and Dunst.
Regarding claim 20, Mittal discloses a system for inflating vehicle tires (Abstract) comprising: a valve 24 positionable between an opened and a closed position (paragraph [0022]); a pneumatic pathway 12, 12a having a pressure value and in fluid communication with an outlet of the valve and an input of a pressure switch (Figure; paragraph [0021]); a vehicle tire 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d in fluid communication with the pneumatic pathway (Figure; paragraph [0021]); and the pressure switch configured to actuate the valve to the opened position when the pressure value of the pneumatic pathway drops below a threshold value (paragraph [0021]); an air tank 32 implicitly having a pressure value and in fluid communication with an inlet of the valve (Figure; paragraph [0020]); a power switch 20; and a second one-way check valve 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d positioned between an outlet of the valve and the tire (Figure); and wherein the second one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the tire into the pneumatic pathway (evident from Figure).
Mittal fails to expressly disclose the pressure value of the air tank being configured to be greater than the threshold value that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi.
Beverly, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires in which the pressure valve of the air tank 62, 64 can be configured to be greater than the threshold value (paragraph [0041]) that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that the pressure value of the air tank is configured to be greater than the threshold value that is selectable between 80 and 100 psi, such as taught by Beverly, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring that the tires can be quickly inflated to a desired pressure for their intended use.
Mittal further fails to expressly disclose a first led configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration and a second led configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated.
Bartos, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires in which a built-in indicator light of the power switch (on-off switch 140) is configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration (lines 24-26 of col. 8) and a corresponding indicator light 154 of the pressure switch 152 is configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated (lines 40-42 of col. 8).
Therber further teaches the use of LED lights for indicator lights in a tire inflation system (paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that a first indicator light is configured to actuate when the power switch is in a closed configuration and a second indicator light is configured to actuate when the pressure switch is activated, such as taught by Bartos, with a reasonable expectation of success in alerting an operator regarding the status of the tire inflation system. Furthermore, to have used LED lights for the indicator lights of Bartos, such as taught by Therber, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in minimizing energy use while providing a longer lifespan for the indicator lights.
Mittal further fails to expressly disclose an engine, and an air compressor configured to receive power from the engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank.
Mason, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes an engine (line 67 of col. 2), and an air compressor 12 configured to receive power from the engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank 9 (Figure; lines 66-67 of col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that it includes an air compressor configured to receive power from an engine and having an outlet in fluid communication with the air tank, such as taught by Mason, as a well-known arrangement for powering the air compressor that would have a reasonable expectation of success of ensuring the air tank can be provided with a desired pressure value for inflating the tires.
Mittal further fails to disclose a first one-way check valve positioned between an outlet of the air tank and the inlet of the valve; and wherein the first one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the inlet of the valve into the air tank.
Hoffman, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes a first one-way check valve 26 positioned between an outlet of the air tank 18 and the inlet of the valve 21; and wherein the first one-way check valve prevents the flow of air from the inlet of the valve into the air tank (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0020], [0021] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that it includes a first one-way check valve positioned between an outlet of the air tank and the inlet of the valve, such as taught by Hoffman, with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing backwards flow of air from the inlet of the valve to the air tank.
Mittal further fails to expressly disclose an air passageway having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank and the inlet of the valve.
Dunst, however, teaches a system for inflating vehicle tires which includes an air passageway (unlabeled elbow fitting for third port 120 shown in Fig. 3) having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank (not shown “air tank” coupled to third port 120 as described in paragraph [0052]) and the inlet of the valve 95 (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for inflating vehicle tires of Mittal so that it includes an air passageway having a ninety-degree bend positioned between the air tank and the inlet of the valve, such as taught by Dunst, with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the air passageway to be fit into confined areas if needed and/or desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows other examples of tire inflation systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights