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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “valve set portion” and “pressure set portion” in claims 11-20, and “interface portion” in claims 12, 17 and 19-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 12, 17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims use the term “interface portion” to refer to part of the housing (e.g., claims 7, 8 and 19), and also to part of the pressure set portion (claims 12, 17). Different claim terminology should be used for different elements of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the proximal and distal primary seals”. It is believed claim 4 was meant to depend from claim 3.
Claim 6 contains the trademarks/trade names Presta, Schrader, American and Dunlop. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a valve and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
In claim 11, “a secondary valve core” is introduced, which could be interpreted to implicitly require a first, or primary, valve core. (There is no mention of a primary, or first, valve core in the claim). It is unclear whether the claim requires a first, or primary, valve core.
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) 1-8 (4 as understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Hennig (US 2013/0269849), which discloses:
1. A valve stem, comprising:
a valve body (4) having-
a central passage (24) extending through the valve body from a proximal end (toward 30) to a distal end (toward 6); and
a lateral port (32) positioned between the proximal end and the distal end and extending through the valve body into the central passage (e.g., para. 0014);
a valve core (28) positioned within the central passage near the proximal end and configured to permit gas flow from the proximal end into the central passage past the valve core (para. 0013); and
a collar (40) surrounding an intermediate portion of the valve body, the collar movable with respect to the valve body between a first position and a second position (para. 0026-0028; FIGS 4A-5B), wherein,
when moved to the first position, the collar occludes the lateral port to prohibit gas flow from the distal end through the central passage and out of the lateral port (FIGS 4A, 4B and para. 0028), and
when moved to the second position, the collar opens the lateral port to permit gas flow from the distal end through central passage and out of the lateral port (FIGS 5A, 5B and para. 0028).
2. The valve stem of claim 1, wherein the central passage defines a central axis, and wherein the collar is movable along the central axis with respect to the valve body between the first and second positions (para. 0026-0028, FIGS 4A-5B).
3. The valve stem of claim 2, further comprising:
a proximal primary seal positioned on the valve body between the proximal end and the lateral port (the left seal 42 as shown in FIG 4B); and
a distal primary seal positioned on the valve body between the distal end and the lateral port (the right seal 42 as shown in FIG 4B),
wherein the proximal and distal primary seals are configured to interface with a surface of the collar to prohibit gas flow from the distal end through the central passage and out of the lateral port (para. 0026, FIG 4B).
4. The valve stem of claim 1, further comprising:
a proximal secondary seal positioned between a proximal end of the collar and the valve body (the left seal 42 as shown in FIG 4B); and
a distal secondary seal positioned between a distal end of the collar and the valve body (the right seal 42 as shown in FIG 4B, which is positioned between a distal end of the collar and a proximal end of the valve body),
wherein the proximal and distal secondary seals are configured to prohibit contaminant ingress to the proximal and distal primary seals (as understood, the secondary seals themselves are capable of preventing contaminant ingress to proximal and distal primary seals, note that this claim does not positively recite primary seals).
5. The valve stem of claim 1, wherein the valve core is configured to prohibit gas flow from the central passage past the valve core (para. 0013).
6. The valve stem of claim 5, wherein the valve core is one of a Schrader valve core, an American valve core, a Presta valve core, or a Dunlop valve core (para. 0013).
7. The valve stem of claim 1, wherein the valve body further comprises an interface portion (base 6) positioned near the distal end, and wherein the interface portion is configured to extend through a port of a wheel to permit fluid communication between a pressure chamber of the wheel and the central passage (it is capable of extending through a port of a wheel; e.g., para. 0012).
8. The valve stern of claim 7, further comprising:
a valve seal (8) positioned on the interface portion of the valve body between the distal end and the lateral port, wherein the valve seal is configured to prohibit gas flow from the pressure chamber of the wheel through the port of the wheel past the valve body (para. 0012); and
a fastener (10) couplable to the distal end of the valve body within the pressure chamber of the wheel and configured to removably attach the valve stem to the wheel (para. 0012).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Rogers (US 6,929,020), which discloses:
1. A valve stem (12), comprising:
a valve body having-
a central passage (40) extending through the valve body from a proximal end (26) to a distal end (42); and
a lateral port (52) positioned between the proximal end and the distal end and extending through the valve body into the central passage (e.g., see FIG 4);
a valve core (30) positioned within the central passage near the proximal end and configured to permit gas flow from the proximal end into the central passage past the valve core (col. 3 lines 13-14); and
a collar (54) surrounding an intermediate portion (50) of the valve body, the collar movable with respect to the valve body between a first position and a second position, (col. 3 lines 40-47), wherein
when moved to the first position, the collar occludes the lateral port to prohibit gas flow from the distal end through the central passage and out of the lateral port (col. 3 lines 40-47, FIG 3), and
when moved to the second position, the collar opens the lateral port to permit gas flow from the distal end through central passage and out of the lateral port (col. 3 lines 40-47, FIG 4).
2. The valve stem of claim 1, wherein the central passage defines a central axis, and wherein the collar is movable along the central axis with respect to the valve body between the first and second positions (col. 3 lines 40-47, FIGS 3 and 4).
5. The valve stem of claim 1, wherein the valve core is configured to prohibit gas flow from the central passage past the valve core (30 is illustrated as a Schrader valve, where Schrader valves are capable of closing to prevent air flow).
6. The valve stem of claim 5, wherein the valve core is one of a Schrader valve core, an American valve core, a Presta valve core, or a Dunlop valve core (30 is illustrated as a Schrader valve).
7. The valve stem of claim 1, wherein the valve body further comprises an interface portion (32) positioned near the distal end, and wherein the interface portion is configured to extend through a port of a wheel to permit fluid communication between a pressure chamber of the wheel and the central passage (it is capable of extending through a port of a wheel; e.g., col. 3 lines 15-32 and FIG 3).
8. The valve stern of claim 7, further comprising:
a valve seal (44) positioned on the interface portion of the valve body between the distal end and the lateral port, wherein the valve seal is configured to prohibit gas flow from the pressure chamber of the wheel through the port of the wheel past the valve body (due to location of grommet 44); and
a fastener (36) couplable to the distal end of the valve body within the pressure chamber of the wheel and configured to removably attach the valve stem to the wheel (col. 3 lines 17-22).
10. The valve stem of claim 1, further comprising a cap (28) couplable to the proximal end (see FIG 3), wherein the cap is configured to occlude the central passage at the proximal end and prevent contaminant ingress to the valve core.
Claim(s) 11-14 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Huang (US 2007/0023083), which discloses:
11. A pressure set assembly (1) configured to couple to a valve stem within the pressure chamber of a wheel (it is so capable), the pressure set assembly comprising:
a housing (14) having a central pressure set passage (122, 142) extending from a proximal end (towards 80) to a distal end (towards 30) of the housing;
a valve set portion (50, 51, 53) positioned within the central pressure set passage near the distal end (e.g., see FIG 1), the valve set portion having an aperture (52, 56) with a secondary valve core (40, 42) positioned therein;
a pressure set portion (74) positioned within the central pressure set passage between the proximal end and the valve set portion (see FIG 1); and
a pressure set spring (72) positioned between the pressure set portion and the valve set portion, wherein the pressure set spring biases the valve set portion against the housing (at 13) to selectively prohibit gas flow from the pressure chamber of the wheel through the central pressure set passage (e.g., para. 0021).
12. The pressure set assembly of claim 11, wherein —
the pressure set portion (74) is threadedly coupled to the housing within the central pressure set passage (at 18; para. 0026),
the pressure set portion further comprises an interface portion (742) configured to receive a tool therein to rotate the pressure set portion with respect to the housing (through-hole 742 is capable of receiving a tool as claimed), and
rotation of the pressure set portion translates the pressure set portion axially with respect to the housing (due to the threaded interface 18; e.g. para. 0026).
13. The pressure set assembly of claim 12, wherein rotation of the pressure set portion in a first direction reduces the distance between the pressure set portion and the valve set portion (when 74 is rotated as to move upward along threads 18, as oriented in FIG 1), thereby compressing the pressure set spring and increasing a set pressure at which the valve set portion moves within the central pressure set passage to permit gas flow from the pressure chamber of the wheel through the central pressure set passage (e.g., para. 0026, which explains that the force of spring 72 acting on the valve set portion can be adjusted by adjusting the position of 74).
14. The pressure set assembly of claim 13, wherein rotation of the pressure set portion in a second direction increases the distance between the pressure set portion and the valve set portion (when 74 is rotated as to move downward along the threads 18, as oriented in FIG 1), thereby extending the pressure set spring and reducing the set pressure at which the valve set portion moves within the central pressure set passage to permit gas flow from the pressure chamber of the wheel through the central pressure set passage.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers alone.
Rogers discloses a fixture (38) positioned between the valve seal and the fastener, but does not disclose wherein the fixture has a mounting port configured to interface with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) remote sender. However it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date to use a fixture which has a mounting port configured to interface with a TPMS remote sender (official notice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fastener of Rogers to include a mounting port configured to interface with a tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) remote sender, so that the valve stem has the advantage that it also remotely monitors tire pressure.
Claim(s) 12-14 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tuan (US 5,054,511).
The anticipation analysis of claims 11-14 over Huang as set forth above is relied upon for this ground of rejection, however it may be determined that Huang does not disclose the claimed “interface portion” of the pressure set portion. Accordingly see Tuan, which teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use an interface portion on a similar pressure set portion (324; see the slot on the adjustment head 324 in FIG 3), which is configured to receive a tool (e.g., a small screwdriver) therein to similarly rotate the pressure set portion with respect to a similar housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an interface portion on Huang’s pressure set portion as claimed, so that the pressure set portion has the advantage that it can be easily adjusted using a tool, as taught by Tuan.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennig in view of Huang (alternatively over Hennig in view of Huang, where Huang is taken with Tuan).
Initially, note that claims 15 and 16 amount to a combination of the valve stem as recited in claim 1, and the pressure set assembly as recited in claim 11.
Further regarding claims 15 and 16, Hennig discloses a valve stem assembly as claimed, comprising: a valve body, collar and valve core as claimed (see the anticipation analysis of claim 1 over Hennig, above). Hennig does not disclose a pressure set assembly as claimed, however Huang teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a pressure set assembly as claimed (see the analysis of claim 11 over Huang, above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to connect the inlet (86) of Huang’s pressure set assembly to the outlet (6) of Hennig’s valve stem assembly, for the purpose of adjustably regulating pressure during venting of the tire pressure back through the valve stem.
Regarding claim 17, see the anticipation analyses of claims 12, 13 and 14 over Huang (alternatively the obviousness rejections of claims 12-14 over Huang in view of Tuan), set forth above. (Claim 17 reproduces the limitations of claims 12-14.)
Regarding claim 18, see the anticipation analysis of claim 3 over Hennig, set forth above. (Claim 18 reproduces the limitations of claim 3.)
Regarding claim 19, see the anticipation analysis of claim 7 over Hennig, set forth above. (Claim 19 reproduces the limitations of claim 7.)
Regarding claim 20, see the anticipation analysis of claim 8 over Hennig, set forth above. (Claim 20 reproduces the limitations of claim 8.)
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers in view of Huang (alternatively over Rogers in view of Huang, where Huang is taken with Tuan).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Rogers discloses a valve stem assembly, comprising: a valve body, collar and valve core as claimed (see the anticipation analysis of claim 1 over Rogers, above). Rogers does not disclose a pressure set assembly as claimed, however Huang teaches that it was known in the art before the effective filing date to use a pressure set assembly as claimed (see the analysis of claim 11 over Huang, above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to connect the inlet (86) of Huang’s pressure set assembly to the outlet (42) of Rogers’ valve stem assembly, for the purpose of adjustably regulating pressure during venting of the tire pressure back through the valve stem.
Regarding claim 17, see the anticipation analyses of claims 12, 13 and 14 over Huang (alternatively the obviousness rejections of claims 12-14 over Huang in view of Tuan), set forth above. (Claim 17 reproduces the limitations of claims 12-14.)
Regarding claim 19, see the anticipation analysis of claim 7 over Rogers, set forth above. (Claim 19 reproduces the limitations of claim 7.)
Regarding claim 20, see the anticipation analysis of claim 8 over Rogers, set forth above. (Claim 20 reproduces the limitations of claim 8.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,937,760 and US 4,869,306 each show a pressure-relief valve that is connected in the stem of a tire supply valve..
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
1/22/26