DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because the following reference characters are improperly underlined:
· Figs. 1 and 2: “1”
· Figs. 4-7: “1(2)”
· Figs. 4, 5, and 7: “20”
· Figs. 8-10: “61”
The underline should be removed.
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
· Reference characters "1" and "2" have both been used to designate the same element in Figs. 3-7.
· Reference characters "4c" and "4q" have both been used to designate the same element in Fig. 3.
· Reference characters "21h" and "21d" have both been used to designate the same element in Figs. 4 and 5.
Reference characters cannot share the same leader line.
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.
Double Patenting
4. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
5. Claim 4 (note claim 4 includes all of the limitations of independent claim 1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/690,865. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine (JP2004330820A) in view of Toda (JP2017136975A).
Regarding claim 1, Sekine discloses a tire air filling device (10 “automatic air pressure adjusting device”; Figs. 1 and 2) that is provided on a wheel attached to a tire (1 “tire”; Fig. 5), and that compresses air and fills an inside of the tire with the air (Refer to Para [0001]-[0006] of the attached English translated document of Sekine), the device comprising: a cylinder (21 “first cylinder” and/or 22 “second cylinder”; Fig. 2) having a first opening (44 “fourth chamber” and 47 “second passage”; Fig. 2) communicating with the tire (Para [0023]; Fig. 5); a weight (31 “first piston” and/or 32 “second piston”; Fig. 2) that is provided inside the cylinder (21 and/or 22), that has an air flow hole (45 “first passage” and/or 47 “second passage”; Fig. 2) through which the air to be supplied to the tire passes, and that moves in an axial direction of the cylinder upon a receipt of a centrifugal force (Para [0008]), to supply the air from the first opening (44 and 47) to the tire; a weight airtight member interposed between the weight and an inner surface of the cylinder (Although not explicitly labeled in the drawings, the airtight members are indicated by the black dots in Fig. 2 between the weight 31, 32 and the inner surface of the cylinder 21, 22); and a weight spring (51 “spring”; Fig. 2) that biases the weight (31 and/or 32) to a side opposite to the tire (Para [0023]), wherein the cylinder (21 and/or 22) has a second opening (41 “first chamber” and 45) on a side opposite to the first opening (44 and 47), but fails to disclose a cap that is detachably attached to the second opening is provided.
Toda, however, teaches a detachable cap (11 “cap”; Figs. 4 and 5; Para [0020]) to the opening of the air intake device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire air filing device of Sekine by including a detachable cap to the opening as taught by Baldry, with the motivation to provide a removable closure for the opening of the cylinder to allow access to the interior of the cylinder for assembly or maintenance.
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine, as modified by Toda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mochizuki (JPS4816034Y1).
Regarding claim 2, Sekine, as modified by Toda, further discloses a plurality of the weight airtight members (Although not explicitly labeled in the drawings, the airtight members are indicated by the black dots in Fig. 2 between the weight 31, 32 and the inner surface of the cylinder 21, 22), wherein the plurality of weight airtight members are aligned along the axial direction (Fig. 2), but fails to disclose a cross section of each of the plurality of weight airtight members taken along a plane extending along the axial direction has a U-shape with an open end, and the plurality of weight airtight members are disposed such that the open ends face a first opening side.
Mochizuki, however, teaches a cross section of each of the plurality of weight airtight members taken along a plane extending along the axial direction has a U-shape with an open end, and the plurality of weight airtight members are disposed such that the open ends face opening sides (Refer to the highlighted portions on page 2 of the attached English translated document of Mochizuki; Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire air filing device of Sekine, as modified by Toda, by substituting its sealing members for a U-shaped sealing members as taught by Mochizuki, with the motivation to improve sealing engagement by orienting the open ends of the sealing members toward the direction of fluid pressure.
11. Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine, as modified by Toda, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sakurada (JP2017165176A).
Regarding claim 3, Sekine, as modified by Toda, discloses a backflow prevention valve (52 “first check valve” and/or 53 “second check valve”; Fig. 2) provided inside the weight (31 and/or 32), and preventing a backflow of the air from the weight to the side opposite to the tire (Refer to Para [0009] on page 4 of the attached English translated document of Sekine), but fails to disclose wherein the backflow prevention valve includes a slide member that slides in the axial direction in the air flow hole, and a specific gravity of the slide member is smaller than a specific gravity of the weight.
Sakurada, however, teaches the backflow prevention valve (23 “check valve”; Fig. 3) includes a slide member (23a “valve element”; Fig. 3) that slides in the axial direction in the air flow hole (Fig. 3; Para [0029]). The slide member
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire air filing device of Sekine, as modified by Toda, by including a slide member that slides in the axial direction in the air flow hole as taught by Sakurada, with the motivation to provide a movable valve element for controlling air flow and preventing backflow.
Further, the slide member is configured to slide within the air flow hole, and therefore implicitly has a smaller specific gravity than the weight of the modified air filing device so as to allow responsive movement relative to the weight.
Regarding claim 8, Sekine, as modified by Toda, discloses a backflow prevention valve (52 and/or 53) provided inside the weight (31 and/or 32), and preventing a backflow of the air from the weight to the side opposite to the tire (Para [0009] on page 4 of the attached English translated document of Sekine), wherein the weight includes an accommodation portion (45 and/or 47) that accommodates the backflow prevention valve (Fig. 3), but fails to disclose at least a part of the accommodation portion is inserted into the weight spring.
Sakurada, however, teaches at least a part of the accommodation portion is inserted into the weight spring (Refer to the below annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s annotated Fig. 3 of Sakurada
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the tire air filing device of Sekine, as modified by Toda, by configuring the accommodation portion such that at least a part of the accommodation portion is inserted into the weight spring as taught by Sakurada, with the motivation to provide a more compact arrangement of internal components within the cylinder, as is well known in mechanical assemblies.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5-7 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.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references disclose wheel-mounted air filling devices and related valve structures.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615