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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Druge (US 2,837,350), which discloses:
1. A locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (9, 21, 25), wherein the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem (such as 7);
a body (5), wherein the body is attached to the nozzle;
a collar (16), wherein the collar is: outside the nozzle (e.g., FIG 1, 2); and configured to slide relative to the nozzle (compare FIG 1 to FIG 2); and
one or more locking teeth (12), the one or more locking teeth: configured to engage the air stem (as shown in FIG 2); and be pressed through the nozzle by the collar (FIG 2).
4. The locking air chuck of claim 1 further comprising a gasket (42) within the nozzle, wherein the gasket is configured to create a seal between the nozzle and the air stem (in the position of FIG 2).
5. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the body includes a threaded opening (5 is threaded at both inlet and outlet ends, see FIG 1).
6. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the nozzle is cylindrical (25 is cylindrical).
7. The locking air chuck of claim 6, wherein the inner surface of the collar is cylindrical (at least at the right side of 16, where spring 18 is housed).
8. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the one or more locking teeth are attached to the body (all elements are attached, at least indirectly).
9. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of each of the one or more locking teeth pass though an opening (19) in the nozzle.
12. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the collar includes a grip surface (the outer surface of 16, which can be gripped).
13. A locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (9, 21, 25), wherein the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem;
a gasket (42) within the nozzle, wherein the gasket is configured to create a seal between the nozzle and the air stem (see FIG 2);
a body (5), wherein the body is attached to the nozzle (via the illustrated threads, see FIG 1);
a valve (43), wherein the valve is configured to allow or prevent air flow through the nozzle (“the valve member 43 having a normally closed position for sealing off the air passage in the chuck when in detached position, and having the dual purpose of opening the tire valve 38 and itself being opened in the attached position of the chuck”);
a collar (16), wherein the collar is: outside the nozzle (FIG 1); and
configured to slide relative to the nozzle (compare FIG 1 to FIG 2); and
one or more locking teeth (12), the one or more locking teeth: configured to engage the air stem (at 13, see FIG 2); and be pressed through the nozzle by the collar (“The cam means 17 is provided by forming the sleeve 16 with internal cam portions or ramps 31 inclined with respect to the axis of the chuck and engageable with the outer ends 32 of detents 12 for displacing the latter inwardly to their nested position in valve stem threads upon movement of the sleeve to locking position adjacent to shoulder 27 as shown in Figure 2”).
17. The locking air chuck of claim 13, further comprising a spring (44), wherein the spring is configured to bias the valve into a closed position.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hunter (WO 2025/144489 A1), which discloses:
1. A locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (108), wherein the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem (such as 20);
a body (104), wherein the body is attached to the nozzle;
a collar (140), wherein the collar is: outside the nozzle (e.g., FIG 3); and configured to slide relative to the nozzle (compare FIG 2 to FIG 3); and
one or more locking teeth (130), the one or more locking teeth: configured to engage the air stem (as shown in FIG 3); and be pressed through the nozzle by the collar (FIG 3, para. 0027).
4. The locking air chuck of claim 1 further comprising a gasket (122) within the nozzle, wherein the gasket is configured to create a seal between the nozzle and the air stem (para. 0126).
5. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the body includes a threaded opening (which is secured to 106b by threaded engagement, see para. 0024).
6. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the outer surface of the nozzle is cylindrical (see FIG 4; note that in geometry, a cylinder is a three-dimensional shape consisting of two congruent and parallel bases joined by a curved lateral surface, e.g., see cuemath.com).
7. The locking air chuck of claim 6, wherein the inner surface of the collar is cylindrical (see FIGS 2, 3, 5).
8. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the one or more locking teeth are attached to the body (all elements are attached, at least indirectly).
9. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein at least a portion (136) of each of the one or more locking teeth pass though an opening (138) in the nozzle.
10. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the one or more locking teeth are a flat spring (see FIG 4).
11. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the one or more locking teeth includes a body (132), wherein the body is curved (FIG 4) to provide a bias for the one or more locking teeth in an unlocked position (para. 0027).
12. The locking air chuck of claim 1, wherein the collar includes a grip surface (the outer surface of 140, which can be gripped).
13. A locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (108), wherein the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem;
a gasket (122) within the nozzle, wherein the gasket is configured to create a seal between the nozzle and the air stem (see FIG 3);
a body (104), wherein the body is attached to the nozzle (at 106b);
a valve, wherein the valve is configured to allow or prevent air flow through the nozzle (the “independent pressure control system”; alternatively the “inflation valve”; para. 0025, both of which at least allow air flow through the nozzle);
a collar (140), wherein the collar is: outside the nozzle (FIG 2); and
configured to slide relative to the nozzle (compare FIG 2 to FIG 3); and
one or more locking teeth (130), the one or more locking teeth: configured to engage the air stem (FIG 3); and be pressed through the nozzle by the collar (FIG 3, para. 0027).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Druge alone, or over Hunter alone.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 14-16, neither Druge nor Hunter discloses the claimed size of the collar or the size and material of the gasket. However it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date to use a gasket containing silicone and the claimed collar and gasket sizes, and it would have been obvious to use these same features in either Druge’s or Hunter’s device in order to create a reliable seal that fits onto a commensurately sized valve stem.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Lusso (US 2022/0146031 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hunter discloses the invention as claimed with arguable exception to a valve, wherein the valve is configured to allow or prevent air flow through the nozzle. Regarding claim 17, Hunter also therefore fails to disclose a spring to bias the valve into a closed position. However Lusso teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a spring (48) to bias a valve (58, 32) into a closed position. To prevent flow through Hunter’s device when not connected to a valve stem, it would have been obvious to use a spring configured to bias a valve into a closed position, as similarly taught by Lusso.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Druge as applied to claim 13 above, or over Hunter (alternatively over Hunter in view of Lusso) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2011/0155260).
Regarding claim 18, Hunter (Hunter in view of Lusso) discloses the invention as claimed with exception to an o-ring to create a seal between the nozzle and body. However Huang teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use an o-ring (513) to create a seal between to similarly threaded parts (e.g., see FIG 2A). To prevent leaks between the threads of Hunters nozzle-body interface, it would have been obvious to use an o-ring thereat, as taught by Huang.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Druge in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 19, Druge discloses an air delivery system that includes:
an air hose (6);
a locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (8, 25), wherein: the outer surface of the nozzle is cylindrical (at least at 25); and the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem (7);
a gasket (42) within the nozzle, wherein the gasket is configured to create a seal between the nozzle and the air stem (FIG 3);
a body (5), wherein the body is attached to: the nozzle (see the threads therebetween, FIG 1); and the air hose (at threads 26);
a valve (43), wherein the valve is configured to allow or prevent air flow through the nozzle;
a spring (44), wherein the spring is configured to bias the valve into a closed position;
a collar (16), wherein: the inner surface of the collar is cylindrical; the inner diameter of the collar is larger than the outer diameter of the nozzle (e.g., FIG 1); the collar is placed with the inner surface adjacent to the outer surface of the nozzle (FIGS 1, 2); and the collar is configured to slide relative to the nozzle (compare FIG 1 to FIG 2); and
three locking teeth (12), wherein the three locking teeth are each configured to: engage the air stem (at 13); and at least partially pass through an opening (19) in the nozzle by the collar (as mapped above).
Druge does not disclose an o-ring to create a seal between the nozzle and body. However Huang teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use an o-ring (513) to create a seal between to similarly threaded parts (e.g., see FIG 2A). To prevent leaks between the threads of Druge’s threaded nozzle-body interface, it would have been obvious to use an o-ring thereat, as taught by Huang.
Regarding claim 20, Druge discloses a threaded connection (26) between the body and the air hose.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter in view of Lusso and Huang.
Regarding claim 19, Hunter discloses an air delivery system that includes:
an air hose (10);
a locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (108), wherein: the outer surface of the nozzle is cylindrical; and the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem (see the analysis of Hunter above);
a gasket (122) within the nozzle, wherein the gasket is configured to create a seal between the nozzle and the air stem see the analysis of Hunter above);
a body (104), wherein the body is attached to: the nozzle see the analysis of Hunter above); and the air hose (see FIG 5);
a collar (140), wherein: the inner surface of the collar is cylindrical; the inner diameter of the collar is larger than the outer diameter of the nozzle; the collar is placed with the inner surface adjacent to the outer surface of the nozzle; and the collar is configured to slide relative to the nozzle (as mapped above); and
three locking teeth (130, where in order to obtain an equidistant spacing as required of para. 0027 using the two teeth of FIG 4, there must be a third one that is not shown), wherein the three locking teeth are each configured to: engage the air stem; and at least partially pass through an opening in the nozzle by the collar (as mapped above).
Hunter does not disclose a valve, wherein the valve is configured to allow or prevent air flow through the nozzle, along with a spring to bias the valve into a closed position. However Lusso teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a spring (48) to bias a valve (58, 32) into a closed position. To prevent flow through Hunter’s device when not connected to a valve stem, it would have been obvious to use a spring configured to bias a valve into a closed position, as similarly taught by Lusso.
Hunter does not disclose an o-ring to create a seal between the nozzle and body. However Huang teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use an o-ring (513) to create a seal between to similarly threaded parts (e.g., see FIG 2A). To prevent leaks between the threads of Hunter’s nozzle-body interface, it would have been obvious to use an o-ring thereat, as taught by Huang.
Regarding claim 20, Hunter does not disclose a threaded connection between the body and the air hose is a threaded connection. However such threaded connnections were well-known in the art before the effective filing date and it would have been obvious to use such a threaded connection to reliably connect Hunter’s hose and body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lusso also discloses:
1. A locking air chuck, the locking air chuck comprising:
a nozzle (shown just radially outward of element 64 in FIG 2C), wherein the nozzle is configured to be placed on an air stem (such as 70, as shown in FIG 4B);
a body (20), wherein the body is attached to the nozzle (FIG 3C);
a collar (44), wherein the collar is: outside the nozzle (e.g., FIG 3C); and configured to slide relative to the nozzle (compare FIG 2C to FIG 3C); and
one or more locking teeth (38, 40), the one or more locking teeth: configured to engage the air stem (as shown in FIG 4B);
but does not disclose the locking teeth to be pressed through the nozzle by the collar.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
8/5/26
Prosecution Insights