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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025, is acknowledged. Upon review of the restriction requirement dated November 6, 2025, with Applicant’s arguments filed December 29, 2025, the Examiner believes that the previously indicated species groupings can be examined together without serious search burden, and the restriction requirement dated November 6, 2025, is now withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19-22, 24, 25 and 27-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, the recitation “having threaded portion” should read –having a threaded portion--.
In claims 1, 2, 5, 26, 28 and 29, all recitations of “the shaft” should read –the downwardly extending shaft--.
In claim 1, line 20-21, the recitation “the cylindrical portion of the valve body” should read –the centrally located downwardly extending generally tubular cylindrical portion of the valve body--.
In claim 7, line 4, the recitation “a self-inflating mattress” should read –[[a]]the pneumatic self-inflating mattress--.
In claim 9, line 4, the recitation “a self-inflating mattress” should read –[[a]]the pneumatic self-inflating mattress--.
In claim 12, the recitation “wherein the valve body has a top, and wherein the valve body further comprises, at or near top, an outwardly extending annular flange portion” should read --wherein the valve body at or near the top of the valve body--.
In claim 14, line 3, the recitation “a user” should read –[[a]]the user--.
In claim 14, line 4, the recitation “a self-inflating mattress” should read –[[a]]the pneumatic self-inflating mattress--.
In claim 15, lines 2-4, both recitations of “the bottom surface” should read –the flat bottom surface--.
In claim 15, line 5, the recitation “a self-inflating mattress” should read –[[a]]the pneumatic self-inflating mattress--.
In claim 18, lines 2-3, the recitation “a retainer, the retainer sized and shaped to securing thereto the stem of the umbrella valve” should read --a retainersecure the stem of the umbrella valve to the plunger--.
In claim 19, line 3, the recitation “the sealing flange” should read –the upwardly oriented sealing flange--.
In claim 20, lines 2 and 3, both recitations of “the self-inflating mattress” should read –the pneumatic self-inflating mattress--.
In claim 21, lines 2 and 4, both recitations of “the self-inflating mattress” should read –the pneumatic self-inflating mattress--.
In claim 22, line 2, the recitation “the outer surface” should read -the vertically extending outer surface--.
In claim 22, line 5, the recitation “the seat” should read –the peripherally extending seat--.
In claim 22, line 5, the recitation “to locate therein a selected seal, and (b) a selected seal” should read --to locate therein a selected seal, and (b) [[a]]the selected seal--.
In claim 24, the recitation “the lower end” should read –[[the]]a lower end--.
In claim 24, line 3, the recitation “the beveled sealing surface” should read –the inwardly beveled sealing surface--.
In claim 25, line 1, the recitation “wherein upper flange” should read –wherein the upper flange--.
In claim 25, lines 2-3, the recitation “the preload guide slots” should read –the one or more preload guide slots--.
In claim 27, line 3, the recitation “the spring retainer” should read –the upwardly extending spring retainer--.
In claim 28, line 8, the recitation “having threaded portion” should read –having a threaded portion--.
In claim 28, line 19, the recitation “the cylindrical portion of the valve body” should read –the centrally located downwardly extending generally tubular cylindrical portion of the valve body--.
In claim 29, line 13, the recitation “having threaded portion” should read –having a threaded portion--.
In claim 29, line 24, the recitation “the cylindrical portion of the valve body” should read –the centrally located downwardly extending generally tubular cylindrical portion of the valve body--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-7 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the tubular cylindrical portion” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the tubular cylindrical portion” in claim 3, lines 1-2, should read –the downwardly extending tubular cylindrical portion--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the one or more teeth” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the one or more teeth” in claim 6, line 4, should read –the one or more distally extending teeth--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the vertically extending cylindrical portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the vertically extending cylindrical portion” in claim 7, line 2, should read –the [[vertically]]centrally located downwardly extending cylindrical portion--.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the compact check valve, wherein the shaft further includes around a lower portion thereof, an anti-backout seal; the plunger gasket operable to seal, or to unseal, a gap between the underside of the plunger and the interior sidewall of the cylindrical portion of the valve body; and the preload compression spring affixed to the distal end of the shaft and located to exert compressive force between the shaft and the upper side of the plunger, in further combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-27 are allowable because they depend on an allowable base claim.
Regarding claim 28, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the kit wherein the shaft further includes around a lower portion thereof, an anti-backout seal; a plunger gasket, the plunger gasket operable to seal a gap between the underside of the plunger and the interior sidewall of the cylindrical portion of the valve body; and the preload compression spring affixed to the distal end of the shaft and located to exert compressive force between the shaft and the upper side of the plunger, in further combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 29, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the self-inflating mattress, wherein the shaft further includes around a lower portion thereof, an anti-backout seal; the plunger gasket operable to seal, or to unseal, a gap between the underside of the plunger and the interior sidewall of the cylindrical portion of the valve body; and the preload compression spring affixed to the distal end of the shaft and located to exert compressive force between the shaft and the upper side of the plunger, in further combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP849513, FR2968057, CN105179761, CN109185512, US7438081 and US2016/0166079 disclose an inflation valve for an inflatable device. EP3943789 discloses a safety cap for a fluid reservoir.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM ET).
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 at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights