DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 15-34 are pending for consideration following applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 8/04/2025.
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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed first outlet and the claimed second outlet.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first out” (line 6 of the claim) should be “the first outlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the center retainer includes a plurality of reed cage grooves a plurality of petal grooves and the first and second reed cage” (lines 10-11) should be “the center retainer includes a plurality of reed cage grooves and a plurality of petal grooves; and the first and second reed cage” to more clearly delineate the claim terms.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, and 9, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,329. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the parent patent recite all of the features of the claims of the instant application including a retainer including a flange, first and second openings and a center retainer; a first and second reed cage; a first reed petal and a second reed petal; and wherein the center retainer includes a plurality of reed cage grooves a plurality of petal grooves and the first and second reed cage each include a reed cage flange and a plurality of first petal tabs configured to form a snap connection that secures the first and second reed cage to the retainer. It is noted that the limitations of a first outlet and a second outlet as recited in the instant application are encompassed by the limitations of the outer openings of the first and second reed cage.
Regarding Claims 22, 23, 27, and 28, claims 6 and 8 of the parent patent recite the retainer includes the petal slots and the reed cages includes the petal tabs (rather than the tabs extending from the retainer and the slots formed in the reed cages). However, such a modification requires a mere reversal of parts and a reversal of parts has been generally held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device recited in the parent patent such that the tabs extend from the retainer and the slots are formed in the reed cages for the purpose of providing an alternative, functionally equivalent arrangement.
Regarding Claim 31, it is noted that first and second inner and outer surfaces are inherently provided to achieve the claimed first and second inner and outer openings recited in the parent claim.
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, 18, 19, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action (or with a timely filed terminal disclaimer as described above).
Claims 16, 17, and 32-34 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.
Claims 21-30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action (or with a timely filed terminal disclaimer as described above) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hosaluk et al. (US Patent 7,028,649) teaches a reed cage with inner and outer reed petals. Schou et al. (US Patent 3,412,754) teaches reed valves having holes 25 to secure to tabs 15 of a reed cage.
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 on (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