DETAILED ACTION
Claims 15-34 are pending for consideration following applicant’s amendment filed 7/13/2026.
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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 7/13/2026 have overcome the objections set forth in the previous Office action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,196,329 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 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.
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.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tassinari et al. (US Patent 6,880,577) in view of Mohamed (US Patent Application 2019/0003604).
Regarding Claim 20, Tassinari discloses a reed valve assembly (abstract) comprising: a retainer 44 including a flange 44a (as shown in Figure 4), a first opening (first opening on a first side of 64), a second opening (second opening on a second, opposite side of 64), a first petal slot 52, and a center retainer 64 disposed between and partially defining both the first opening and second opening (as shown in Figure 4), the center retainer 64 including a first reed cage groove (as shown in Figure 4, center retainer 64 includes a first reed cage groove on the left side of 64 to accept tab 48) and a second reed cage groove (as shown in Figure 4, center retainer 64 includes a second reed cage groove on the right side of 64 to accept tab 48); a first reed cage 42 (it is noted that the left half of 42 as shown in Figure 4 is readable as a first reed cage while the right half of 42 as shown in Figure 4 is readable as a second reed cage; the claim does not require the cages to be separable) configured to be advanced from a bottom of the retainer and partially through the first opening of the retainer (as shown in Figure 4, the left half of 42 is configured to be advanced through the first opening of the retainer), the first reed cage including a first outlet (the outlet covered by petal 66 on the left side of Figure 4) configured to be fluidly coupled to the first opening of the retainer (as shown in Figure 4) and a first reed cage flange (tab 48 provides a first reed cage flange engaging the left side of the center retainer) configured to form a connection with the first reed cage groove (as shown in Figure 4); a second reed cage (the right half of 42 as shown in Figure 4 is readable as a second reed cage as described above) configured to be advanced from the bottom of the retainer and partially through the second opening of the retainer (as shown in Figure 4, the right half of 42 is configured to be advanced through the second opening of the retainer), the second reed cage including a second outlet (the outlet covered by petal 66 on the right side of Figure 4) configured to be fluidly coupled to the second opening of the retainer (as shown in Figure 4) and a second reed cage flange (tab 48 provides a second reed cage flange engaging the right side of the center retainer) configured to form a connection with the second reed cage groove (as shown in Figure 4); a first reed petal configured to extend over the first outlet (petal 66 on the left side of Figure 4); and a second reed petal configured to extend over the second outlet (petal 66 on the right side of Figure 4).
Tassinari does not disclose the connections are snap connections.
Mohamed teaches a reed valve assembly (abstract) and further teaches snap fits may be used in assembling components of the reed valve modules (para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Tassinari such that the retainer grooves and the reed cage flanges are connected by snap fits as taught by Mohamed for the purpose of ensuring the desired connection using a fastening arrangement known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 and 31-34 are allowed.
Claims 21-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues with respect to claim 20 that Mohamed fails to teach the claimed location of the snap connections. These arguments are not persuasive because Tassinari is relied upon for teaching connections between reed flanges (tabs 48 as shown in Figure 4) and reed cage grooves (as shown in Figure 4, tabs 48 are inserted into reed cage grooves). Mohamed is relied upon for teaching that snap fits are known to be used in assembling components of the reed valve modules (para. 0043). It is seen to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized snap connections as taught by Mohamed for connecting any components of the reed valve, including the flanges and grooves of Tassinari, for the purpose of utilizing a connection arrangement which is known in the art and ensures the components remain fastened as desired.
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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-4pm.
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 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights