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 .
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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE102006007211 (“Golikov”).
Regarding claim 1, Golikov discloses (see fig. 4) a high air flow valve stem plug comprising:
a. a plug (6b) having a first end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) and a second end (top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) and an interior surface (radially inner surface of coupling 6b) and an exterior surface (radially outer surface of coupling 6b);
b. a plurality of female threads (7) located on the interior surface of the first end; and
c. an unrestricted bore (cylindrical interior bore of coupling 6b) of constant diameter located within, and running completely through, the plug.
Regarding claim 2, Golikov discloses a section (section circumscribing threading 7) of the first end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) of the plug has an exterior diameter that is larger than the exterior diameter of a section (see reduced outer diameter portion of coupling 6b defining annular groove which receives locking balls 10) of the second end (top end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Golikov discloses the plurality of female threads (7) located on the interior surface (radially inner surface of coupling 6b) of the first end (bottom end, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) number 5, 6, or 7 (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Golikov discloses a groove (annular groove which receives locking balls 10) is located on the exterior surface (radially outer surface of coupling 6b) of the section (see reduced outer diameter portion of coupling 6b defining annular groove which receives locking balls 10) of the second end (top end of coupling 6b, relative to the orientation of fig. 4) of the plug (6b) to receive an air supply hose connector (4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golikov, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US2521701 (“Earle”).
Regarding claim 3, Golikov discloses the invention as claimed except for the exterior surface of the section of the first end of the plug being textured.
However, Earle teaches a plug (12) having an exterior surface (64) of a section of a first end (threaded end) of the plug being textured (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Golikov by configuring the exterior surface of the section of the first end of the plug to be textured, as taught by Earle, to allow for easier handling of the high air flow valve stem plug.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golikov, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Engineering Expedient.
Regarding claim 4, Golikov discloses the invention as claimed except for the diameter of the bore being at least 3/8 of an inch.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention would know that scaling the high air flow valve stem plug up or down would proportionally change the flow rate therethrough.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the invention of Golikov by configuring the diameter of the bore to be at least 3/8 of an inch, to allow the desired maximum flow rate through the high air flow valve stem plug, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US6206431 discloses a coupling having a male coupler with a female thread and an annular groove disposed on an exterior thereof. US9375985 discloses a valve stem having an auxiliary port. WO2020039719 discloses a coupling having male and female couplers with varied fluid passages extending therethrough.
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