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
Claims 4-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buck (U.S. Patent 1,865,231).
In regards to claim 1, Buck discloses an annular body (1) configured to couple to a valve stem port and selectively permit gas flow through the valve stem port (see lines 1-6 and 28-31), the annular body (1) having :a central passage (CP) extending from an inlet end (IE) concentrically through at least a portion of the annular body (1); and a chamber (C) in the central passage (CP) adjacent to the inlet end (IE), the chamber (C) being radially enlarged with respect to the central passage (CP); a sealing member (14) slidable within the central passage (CP) and positioned at least partially within the chamber (C); a stopping member (5, 10) operably coupled to the annular body (1) at the inlet end (IE), the stopping member (5, 10) having a sealing surface(12) facing the central passage (CP) away from the inlet end (IE); and a biasing member (18) urging the sealing member (14) toward the sealing surface (12), wherein: when in a closed position, the sealing member (14) is positioned in contact with the sealing surface (12) to prohibit gas flow between the central passage (CP) and an orifice (O), and when in an open position, the sealing member (14) is positioned away from the sealing surface (12) to permit gas flow between the central passage (CP) and the orifice (O).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, the sealing member (14) a poppet, and wherein the poppet (14) has an o-ring (OR) at an end facing the inlet end (IE) of the annular body (1) positioned to abut against the sealing surface (12) to selectively prohibit airflow through the central passage (CP).
In regards to claim 3, the inflation valve assembly is configured to couple to the valve stem port located in a vehicle wheel having a tire with an internal pressure chamber.
In regards to claim 20, the stopping member (5, 10) is threadingly coupled to the annular body (1) at the inlet end (IE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck.
Buck discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Buck does not specifically disclose that a flow area of the central passage is about twenty times larger than an area of a flow path of a Schrader valve core.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the central passage of Buck to be about twenty times larger than an area of a flow path of a Schrader valve core to facilitate relatively faster inflation and deflation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck view of Medley et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0204946), hereinafter “Medley”.
Buck discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
In regards to claim 12, while Buck does disclose that the valve stem is to be mounted for use with a tire, Buck does not explicitly illustrate a wheel, comprising: a first valve stem port and a second valve stem port.
Meldey teaches a tire inflation assembly wherein a wheel assembly (1000) includes at least two valve openings (20) to receive a respective control valve cartridge (30).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have utilized the control valve assembly of Buck within a wheel having two stem ports to facilitate greater control over tire filling operations.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck and Medley and further in view of Buckner et al. (U.S. Patent 2,928,417), hereinafter “Buckner”.
Buck, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Buck does not specifically disclose that the second valve stem port has a deflate valve stem assembly received therein.
Buckner teaches a deflate valve stem assembly at least to the extent necessitated by the claim.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the wheel assembly system of Buck, as modified, to include a deflate valve assembly to facilitate greater control over tire filling operations.
In regards to claim 14, Buckner teaches a stem cover (20), at least to the extent necessitated by the claim.
In regards to claim 16, the second valve stem port has a deflation to pressure set valve stem assembly received therein. The office notes that such feature will be provided by the biasing spring.
Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck and Medley and further in view of Nikolayev et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0028865), hereinafter “Nikolayev”.
Buck, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Buck does not specifically disclose that the second valve stem port has a Schrader valve received therein.
Nikolayev teaches a Schrader valve within a tire rim. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the wheel assembly system of Buck, as modified, to include a Schrader valve to facilitate greater control over tire filling operations.
Claim(s) 18, 19 and 30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck in view of Abe (U.S. Publication 2003/0172973).
Buck discloses all of the elements as disclosed above.
In regards to claim 18, Buck does not specifically disclose that the poppet has an orifice extending radially through the poppet, the orifice configured to permit gas flow from the inlet end chamber to the central passage.
However, Abe teaches a poppet valve (7) having radial orifices (9) extending radially through the poppet (7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have replaced the poppet of Buck for the poppet of Abe to facilitate better centering of the poppet with the central passage due to the sidewalls of the poppet structure riding along the inner walls of the central passage as illustrated by Abe.
In regards to claim 19, Buck does not specifically disclose a secondary chamber in the central passage positioned axially between the chamber and the central passage, wherein the secondary chamber is radially enlarged with respect to the central passage and radially constricted with respect to the chamber.
However, Abe teaches a check valve assembly wherein a secondary chamber (SC) in a central passage is positioned axially between a chamber (C) and the central passage, wherein the secondary chamber (SC) is radially enlarged with respect to the central passage and radially constricted with respect to the chamber (C).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the central passage chambers of Buck as taught by Abe to facilitate the usage of a poppet valve having radial orifices extending radially through the poppet which facilitates better centering of the poppet with the central passage due to the sidewalls of the poppet structure riding along the inner walls of the central passage as illustrated by Abe.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 30, the secondary chamber (SC) forms a seat against which the biasing member (10) abuts as the sealing member translates between the closed and open positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753