DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 15 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "40" (in paragraph 30) have both been used to designate the filling connector.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “40” has been used to designate both structure and filling connector (in paragraph 30).
In paragraph 30 or page 5 line 24 depending on the version of the specification one is looking at, reference numeral 40 refers to “the body of the filling connector 40”. Throughout the entirety of the specification, reference numeral 40 refers to “structure”. Throughout the specification, the “filling connector” is referenced by reference numeral 1. The reference to the filling connector in paragraph 30 or page 5 line 24 depending on the version of the specification as numeral 40 is in err and requires correction.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 14 and 22. Reference numerals 14 and 22 appear in the drawings, specifically Figure 1. Reference numerals 14 and 22 do not appear in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that in the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Specifically, claims 1-4 require “Currently Amended”, while claims 5-13 require the status identifier “Original”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenal (U.S. Patent 12,117,127) in view of Takeda (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0178399).
Regarding claim 1, Frenal discloses a conditioning device configured to cooperate with a fluid filling or tapping connector 1 of a pressurized fluid container 18, said conditioning device comprising a structure 2 extending along a longitudinal axis, the conditioning device comprising a valve pusher 11 that is movable along the longitudinal axis in a fluid transfer line 7 of said structure to open at least one valve 19 of an internal circuit 20 of the fluid filling or tapping connector when the structure is brought into contact with the connector to bring the fluid transfer line into fluidic communication with the internal circuit of the fluid filling or tapping connector, wherein the valve pusher comprises a body 11 and at least one protective element (bottom surface of 11) arranged on said body, said at least one protective element being configured to come into contact at least in part with said valve when said valve is opened, said body of the valve pusher being made of a first material (FIG. 1, 2; Col. 5 ln 15-47, Col. 5 ln 65-Col. 7 ln 7, Col. 8 ln 17-26).
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element being made at least in part of a second material, said second material having a hardness lower than the hardness of said first material, wherein the protective element is configured on the valve pusher to absorb a force of an impact of the valve pusher against the at least one valve.
However, Takeda teaches a body 54 of the valve pusher 53/54 being made of a first material and said at least one protective element 55 being made at least in part of a second material, said second material having a hardness lower than the hardness of said first material, wherein the protective element is configured on the valve pusher to absorb a force of an impact of the valve pusher against the at least one valve (FIG. 2; Paragraph 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective element that is separate from the body of the valve pusher, the protective element being made of a material with a lower hardness than the first material that makes up the body of the valve pusher, as taught by Takeda, for the purpose of providing a means to decrease the impact of the valve pusher on the valve.
Regarding claim 2, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal further discloses said body comprises at least one downstream surface (bottom portion of 11 that slides into 20, modified to have the protective element as taught by Takeda on the bottom surface) extending generally orthogonally to the longitudinal axis, said at least one protective element being arranged on said downstream surface (FIG. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 8, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal/Takeda further teaches said at least one protective element is composed of a discontinuous set of elements 55 arranged on said body (FIG. 2; Paragraph 91).
Regarding claim 9, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal/Takeda further teaches the second material (an elastic member) has a hardness of between 25 Hv and 90 Hv on the Shore A scale or between 30 Hv and 70 Hv on the Shore D scale (typical elastic O-rings have a hardness of around 70 Hv on the Shore A scale) (Paragraph 91).
Regarding claim 13, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal further discloses a conditioning system for a pressurized fluid container, comprising:
a conditioning device according to claim 1,
a fluid filling or tapping connector 1 of a pressurized fluid container 18, said connector comprising:
a first end (top of 1) configured to be connected to the conditioning device and comprising a valve 19, the valve being opened by the displacement of the valve pusher on the valve,
a second end (bottom of 1) configured to be connected to a pressurized fluid container,
a fluid circuit 20 arranged between said first end and said second end (FIG. 1, 2; Col. 5 ln 15-47, Col. 5 ln 65-Col. 7 ln 7, Col. 8 ln 17-26) (Takeda FIG. 2; Paragraph 91).
Claims 3-5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenal in view of Takeda in further view of Danielson (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0174928).
Regarding claim 3, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal further discloses said body comprises at least one lateral surface (vertical sidewalls of 11) extending along the longitudinal axis (FIG. 1, 2).
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element being arranged on said lateral surface.
However, Danielson teaches a valve pusher body 112, the body having a lateral surface extending along the longitudinal axis, and at least one protective element 122 being arranged on a side lateral surface within a groove (FIG. 8; Paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective element that is positioned at the bottom of the lateral surface of the body of the valve pusher, as taught by Danielson, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Regarding claim 4, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal further discloses said body comprises a protuberance (bottom of 11 that slides into 20) extending along the longitudinal axis, at least a portion of said protuberance projecting into an internal recess (through 20 into 19) of said valve when said valve is opened (FIG. 1, 2; Col. 8 ln 60-63).
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element being arranged on a surface of said protuberance.
However, Danielson teaches a valve pusher body 112, the body having a lateral surface extending along the longitudinal axis, and at least one protective element 122 being arranged on a side lateral surface within a groove (FIG. 8; Paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective element that is positioned at the bottom of the lateral surface of the body of the valve pusher, as taught by Danielson, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Regarding claim 5, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element is arranged in at least one groove formed on an outer surface of the body.
However, Danielson teaches a valve pusher body 112, the body having a lateral surface extending along the longitudinal axis, and at least one protective element 122 being arranged on a side lateral surface within a groove (FIG. 8; Paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective element that is positioned at the bottom of the lateral surface of the body of the valve pusher, as taught by Danielson, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Regarding claim 10, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal is silent regarding the second material is selected from the group consisting of: a polytetrafluoroethylene, a polyoxymethylene, a rubber and a polyurethane.
However, Danielson teaches making gaskets 114 out of rubber (Paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by making the second material rubber, as taught by Danielson, for the purpose of providing a known material for a sealing ring that with resist undesired wear.
Regarding claim 12, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element comprises at least one O-ring.
However, Danielson teaches a valve pusher body 112, the body having a lateral surface extending along the longitudinal axis, and at least one protective element 122 being arranged on a side lateral surface within a groove (FIG. 8; Paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective element that is positioned at the bottom of the lateral surface of the body of the valve pusher in the form of an O-ring, as taught by Danielson, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frenal in view of Takeda in further view of McAlister (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0169180).
Regarding claim 6, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element is a surface coating deposited on at least a portion of an outer surface of the body.
However, McAlister teaches at least one protective element is a surface coating deposited on at least a portion of an outer surface of the body 155E (FIG. 1W; Paragraph 67, 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective surface coating deposited on the outer surface of the body, as taught by McAlister, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Regarding claim 7, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element forms a sleeve about said body, at least partially covering an outer surface of the body.
However, McAlister teaches at least one protective element is a surface coating deposited on at least a portion of an outer surface of the body 155E creating a sleeve about the body (FIG. 1W; Paragraph 67, 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective surface coating deposited on the outer surface of the body thus forming a sleeve about the outer surface, as taught by McAlister, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Regarding claim 11, Frenal, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1.
Frenal is silent regarding said at least one protective element is made in part of a third material, said third material having a hardness lower than the hardness of said first material.
However, McAlister teaches at least one protective element is made of a third material (a surface coating), said third material having a hardness lower than the hardness of said first material (FIG. 1W; Paragraph 67, 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frenal by adding a protective surface coating deposited on the outer surface of the body, the hardness of the coating being less than that of the body, as taught by McAlister, for the purpose of preventing fluid to pass between the valve pusher and the connector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references is made using improper hindsight. In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
Applicant further argues that the teachings of Takeda are improper because Takeda is a different type of valve than Frenal. In response to Applicant’s argument that Takeda is nonanalogous art, it has been held that the determination that a reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. The test for analogous art is twofold. First, if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor regardless of the problem addressed. If it is not, whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. Presently, Takeda is within the field of inventor’s endeavor. Furthermore, the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. Takeda teaches a valve that has a valve member move linearly in order to open and close a valve. Frenal, and that which is disclosed in the present application, also disclose a valve that has a valve member move linearly in order to open and close a valve.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-3:00.
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, Craig M 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER D BALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights