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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6 & 8-9 are pending in the application. Claims 5 & 7 are cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is allowable. Claim 6, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between Species I-III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 10/30/2025, is hereby withdrawn and Claim 6 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 2-4 & 6 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.
As to Claim 2, the limitation “the anti-return piece has two annular ribs facing the cylinder” is indefinite. Claim 1 states the anti-return piece has at least one annular rib. As such, it is not clear if the two annular ribs of Claim 2 are part of the at least one annular rib of Claim 1, or if the two annular ribs of Claim 2 are in addition to the at least one annular rib of Claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the two annular ribs of Claim 2 will be interpreted as part of the at least one annular rib of Claim 1.
As to Claim 6, the limitation “the anti-return piece has at least one annular rib” is indefinite. Claim 1 states the anti-return piece has at least one annular rib. As such, it is not clear if the at least one annular rib of Claim 6 is the same at least one annular rib of Claim 1, or if the at least one annular rib of Claim 6 is in addition to the at least one annular rib of Claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the at least one annular rib of Claim 6 will be interpreted as the same structure as the at least one annular rib of Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8 & 9 are allowed.
As to Claim 1, the prior art of record teaches an air compressor structure with a cylinder with a plurality of holes, a partition, and a limit ring; a piston, a cover with a column, an anti-return piece; the piston moves closer to the air holes during a first stroke, and the piston moves away from the holes during a second stroke; the anti-return piece has a bowl shaped profile with at least one annular rib, the at least one annular rib forming a recess on a bottom of the outer bowl with a bowl edge, the recess facing away from the column, but does not teach “the recess faces toward a junction of the limit ring and the partition”. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to disclose each of the limitations of Claim 1. The closest art of record is Ito, in view of Kauffman (previously cited). However, Ito, as modified with Kauffman, would place the recess radially beyond the Ito junction, resulting in the recess facing away from the junction. It would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ito, as modified, without significant structural modification and without the benefit of hindsight. Therefore, this limitation, as claimed in Claim 1, is neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 8-9 depend on Claim 1, so are also allowed.
Claims 2-4 & 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. 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.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783