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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the internal valve is positioned at an intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the at least two ports”. Referencing the annotated Fig. 5 below, the internal (ball) valve appears to be located substantially above the intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the at least two ports rather than “at” it. The disclosure does not appear to provide any additional support for the claimed limitation. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret “the internal valve is positioned at an intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the at least two ports” broadly referring to the valve being located within the same coupler region.
Claims 11 and 20 each recite a similar limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-6, 9-12, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appler et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2008/0190208, previously cited but not relied upon) in view of Forbes et al. (U.S. Patent 2,006,712, previously cited but not relied upon).
Claim 1: Appler et al. discloses a tool (31), comprising: a flare nut region (40) at a distal (left in Figs. 4-5) end of the tool comprising a fastener (female threaded fitting 40) wherein the fastener form an air tight seal with an environmental control system (44 - paragraph 61-62, noting seal 47a, but also that forming an air tight seal” constitutes the intended use of the tool and would be dependent on the structure of the non-positively recited environmental control system); a core removal tool region (60) at a proximal (right in Figs. 4-5) end of the tool comprising a shaft (62), a knob (64) at an opposite end of the shaft from an end (67/68) that mates with a valve core, and a slidable fastener (68 - paragraph 65), wherein the shaft is oriented along a longitudinal axis (e.g. horizontal direction in Fig. 5) of the core removal tool region; and a coupler region (30) between the distal end of the tool and the proximal end of the tool, the coupler region comprising a port (36), an internal valve (48 - paragraph 63), and a longitudinal volume (34) to accept a portion of the core removal tool region (Fig. 5; paragraph 66), wherein the port is at an acute angle from the longitudinal axis (paragraphs 25, 82; Fig. 5), wherein the internal valve (48) is positioned at an intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the port (i.e. in the same vicinity within the coupler region).
Appler does not disclose at least two ports, each of the at least two ports are at an acute angle from the longitudinal axis. However, Forbes teaches a service valve (10) having more than one port (35) at an acute angle from a longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly provided Appler with more than one, e.g. two, ports since each could be connected to a different line such as inlet, outlet, or charging for servicing equipment.
Claim 11: Appler et al. discloses a method for servicing an environmental control system (e.g. paragraph 3), comprising: removing a core (74) on the environmental control system using a multi-port core removal tool (31); and installing the multi-port core removal tool within the environmental control system (paragraph 73-77); wherein the multi-port core removal tool comprises: a flare nut region (40) at a distal (left in Figs. 4-5) end of the tool comprising a fastener (female threaded fitting 40) wherein the fastener form an air tight seal with the environmental control system (44 - paragraph 61-62, noting seal 47a, but also that forming an air tight seal” constitutes the intended use of the tool and would be dependent on the structure of the non-positively recited environmental control system); a core removal tool region (60) at a proximal (right in Figs. 4-5) end of the tool comprising a shaft (62), a knob (64) at an opposite end of the shaft from an end (67/68) that mates with a valve core, and a slidable fastener (68 - paragraph 65), wherein the shaft is oriented along a longitudinal axis (e.g. horizontal direction in Fig. 5) of the core removal tool region; and a coupler region (30) between the distal end of the tool and the proximal end of the tool, the coupler region comprising a port (36), an internal valve (48 - paragraph 63), and a longitudinal volume (34) to accept a portion of the core removal tool region (Fig. 5; paragraph 66), wherein the port is at an acute angle from the longitudinal axis (paragraphs 25, 82; Fig. 5), wherein the internal valve (48) is positioned at an intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the port (i.e. in the same vicinity within the coupler region).
Appler does not disclose at least two ports, each of the at least two ports are at an acute angle from the longitudinal axis. However, Forbes teaches a service valve (10) having more than one port (35) at an acute angle from a longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly provided Appler with more than one, e.g. two, ports since each could be connected to a different line such as inlet, outlet, or charging for servicing equipment.
Claims 2 and 12: As modified by Forbes, Appler suggests the at least two ports could each comprise a valve to allow closure of the auxiliary conduit(s) and switching of components to be attached to them while under pressure (paragraph 83).
Claims 5 and 15: As modified by Forbes, Appler suggests that each of the at least two ports would comprise a complementary fastener (Appler includes a fastener as threads on the port - paragraph 72; The ports 250 of Forbes are similarly threaded) to accept a piece of environmental control equipment (intended use). It is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the nature of the environmental control equipment pertains to the intended use of the ports and does not necessarily limit the port structure.
Claims 6 and 16: The piece of environmental control equipment is selected from the group consisting of: a vacuum pump, a gas cylinder, a volume of refrigerant, a diagnostic tool, a pressure gauge, a containment vessel, a waste vessel, and a volume of lubricant (e.g. paragraph 76 - though it is noted that this is merely an extension of the intended use limitation of claim 5 discussed above).
Claims 9 and 19: Rotating the knob also rotates the core (paragraph 74).
Claim 10: The environmental control system is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (e.g. paragraph 3 - though it is noted that this pertains to the intended use of the tool and does not limit its structure).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appler et al. and Forbes et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Fang et al. (CN118960262).
Claims 3 and 13: Appler further discloses that the port 36 can be connected to a vacuum pump (paragraphs 76, 82), and Forbes suggests that any of the ports 35 may be for charging or discharging (page 1, right column, 33-47). Appler and Forbes do not necessarily teach at least two vacuum pump hoses operatively coupled to the at least two ports. However, Fang et al. generally teaches that vacuum hoses can be coupled to two ports rather than one to drain an air conditioning system more efficiently (e.g. paragraphs 3, 9, 72, 82-83). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected a hose to each of the ports in order to have serviced the system more efficiently.
Claims 4 and 14: Referring further to Fang, provision of the at least two vacuum pump hoses reduce a time to reach a vacuum within the environmental control system (as cited above, the hoses would generally increase efficiency and thus reduce time). It is also noted that this limitation pertains to the intended use of the tool and does not necessarily further limit the invention.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appler et al. and Forbes et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rizzio (U.S. PGPub 2018/0149275).
Claims 7 and 17: Appler and Forbes teach a device substantially as claimed except for a mesh in the coupler region. However, Rizzio discloses a ball valve comprising a mesh filter (413 – paragraph 52). To the extent that the coupler region of Appler is also essentially a ball valve (paragraph 63), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a mesh (e.g. a filter) in the coupler region in order to have to permitted a working fluid or gas to pass through the mesh while trapping particulates larger than the pore size.
Claims 8 and 18: It is submitted that the mesh would accept a core and retain the core during a pressure gradient, i.e. it would not allow passage of the core therethrough as it is presumed to be larger than the particulates intended to be captured by the mesh.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Appler et al. in view of Forbes and Fang et al.
Appler et al. discloses a tool (31), comprising: a flare nut region (40) at a distal (left in Figs. 4-5) end of the tool comprising a fastener (female threaded fitting 40) wherein the fastener form an air tight seal with an environmental control system (44 - paragraph 61-62, noting seal 47a, but also that forming an air tight seal” constitutes the intended use of the tool and would be dependent on the structure of the non-positively recited environmental control system); a core removal tool region (60) at a proximal (right in Figs. 4-5) end of the tool comprising a shaft (62), a knob (64) at an opposite end of the shaft from an end (67/68) that mates with a valve core, and a slidable fastener (68 - paragraph 65), wherein the shaft is oriented along a longitudinal axis (e.g. horizontal direction in Fig. 5) of the core removal tool region; and a coupler region (30) between the distal end of the tool and the proximal end of the tool having a port (36), an internal valve (48 - paragraph 63), and a longitudinal volume (34) to accept a portion of the core removal tool region (Fig. 5; paragraph 66), wherein the port is at an acute angle from the longitudinal axis (paragraphs 25, 82; Fig. 5), wherein the internal valve (48) is positioned at an intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the port (i.e. in the same vicinity within the coupler region).
Appler does not disclose at least two ports, each of the at least two ports are at an acute angle from the longitudinal axis. However, Forbes teaches a service valve (10) having more than one port (35) at an acute angle from a longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly provided Appler with more than one, e.g. two, ports since each could be connected to a different line such as inlet, outlet, or charging for servicing equipment.
Appler further discloses that the port 36 can be connected to a vacuum pump (paragraphs 76, 82), and Forbes suggests that any of the ports 35 may be for charging or discharging (page 1, right column, 33-47). Appler and Forbes do not necessarily teach at least two vacuum pump hoses operatively coupled to the at least two ports, provision of the at least two vacuum pump hoses reduce a time to reach a vacuum within the environmental control system. However, Fang et al. generally teaches that hoses can be coupled to two ports rather than one to drain a system more efficiently (e.g. paragraphs 3, 9, 72, 82-83). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected a hose to each of the ports in order to have serviced the system more efficiently. Provision of the at least two vacuum pump hoses reduce a time to reach a vacuum within the environmental control system (as cited above, the hoses would generally increase efficiency and thus reduce time). It is also noted that this limitation pertains to the intended use of the tool and does not necessarily further limit the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Wiser are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above, which rely on Forbes instead of Wiser. To any extent that Forbes may be considered similar to Wiser, it is noted that Applicant attacks Appler and Wiser individually rather than addressing the combination thereof. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Fang, Applicant makes similar arguments as were addressed in the previous Office Action.
Applicant also vaguely alleges “other deficiencies” of the rejection (e.g. page 12), but does not provide any details.
The examiner submits that the new limitations to the independent claims, specifically “wherein the internal valve is positioned at an intersection of the longitudinal axis of the tool and the at least two ports”, are not adequately supported in the original disclosure. The cited paragraphs 19 and 21-28 do not discuss the claimed limitation, and the figures do not show it as discussed above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights