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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was/were considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pneumatic core". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the office regards the pneumatic core being the same as the “pneumatic seal and valve actuator core”.
The terms “flexible”, “resilient”, “gradually”, “sufficient”, and “easily” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “flexible”, “resilient”, “gradually”, “sufficient”, and “easily” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base 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 (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) 1-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. (U.S. Patent 5,857,481), hereinafter “Zimmerman” in view of Nikolayev et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0000568), hereinafter “Nikolayev” and further in view of Langeveld (U.S. Patent 6,279,608) and Thompson (U.S. Patent 3,807,687).
In regards to claims 1, 3, 18, and 19 Zimmerman discloses an air-chuck system (10) with attachment, sealing and valve-actuation function for use with a tire stem, the air-chuck system (10) comprising: an air chuck (10). See Fig. 2.
While Zimmerman does disclose that the system is for use with a tire (32), Zimmerman does not explicitly disclose that the tire includes a Schrader valve.
Nikolayev teaches a coupling system for filling tires with air (see Abstract). Nikolayev teaches that a tire stem that includes a Schrader valve (60, see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the tire of Zimmerman to include a Schrader valve as taught by Nikolayev to ensure against pressure leakage from the tire.
Zimmerman does not disclose that the air chuck includes: a twist-on cap; and a pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core held partially within the twist-on cap, wherein the twist-on cap has interior threads that engage outer threads of the tire stem to allow a user to attach the air chuck to the tire stem with a single rotational motion of the twist-on cap, wherein the pneumatic core includes an air passageway extending from an outer end to an inner end, wherein a cylindrical first portion of the pneumatic core includes a flexible, resilient seal positioned on the pneumatic core to seal against an inner circumference of the tire stem to form a seal of the air passageway to the tire stem, wherein the first portion of the pneumatic core is configured to be gradually urged into the tire stem as the twist-on cap is rotated relative to the tire stem to engage successive ones of the outer threads of the tire stem, such that upon rotation of the twist-on cap by a sufficient number of turns, the flexible, resilient seal seals to an inner circumference of the tire stem, and upon further rotation of twist-on cap, the pneumatic core actuates the Schrader valve to open after the seal is established.
Langeveld teaches a fluid coupling system wherein a female coupling portion (22) includes a twist-on cap (23); and a pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core (28) held partially within the twist-on cap (23), wherein the twist-on cap (23) has interior threads (31) that engage outer threads of a male coupler to allow a user to attach the female coupler (22) to the male coupler (1) with a single rotational motion of the twist-on cap (23), wherein the pneumatic core (28) includes an air passageway (27) extending from an outer end to an inner end, wherein a cylindrical first portion of the pneumatic core (28) includes a flexible, resilient seal (S) positioned on the pneumatic core (28) to seal against an inner circumference (16) of the male coupler to form a seal of the air passageway to the male coupler, wherein the first portion of the pneumatic core (28) is configured to be gradually urged into the male coupler as the twist-on cap (23) is rotated relative to the male coupler to engage successive ones of the outer threads (32) of the male coupler, such that upon rotation of the twist-on cap (23) by a sufficient number of turns, the flexible, resilient seal (S) seals to an inner circumference (16) of the male coupler, and upon further rotation of twist-on cap (23), the pneumatic core (28) actuates a valve (17) valve to open after the seal is established.
Langeveld does not explicitly disclose that the seal (S) is made from a flexible, resilient material. However, Thompson teaches a coupling system which includes an elastomeric seal (38, col. 3, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to designed the seal of Langeveld to be elastomeric as taught by Thompson to ensure fluid sealing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the clip on style chuck of Zimmerman as taught by Langeveld to ensure that the valve is only opened once fluid coupling is complete as taught by Langeveld (see Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
995
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17, 18, and 19 Langeveld teaches that the first portion of the pneumatic core (28) includes an outer circumferential O-ring groove (G), wherein the flexible, resilient seal (S) is an O-ring made of rubber or a similar elastomeric material that is positioned in the O-ring groove (G) to seal between the first portion of the pneumatic core (28) and an inner cylindrical surface (16) of a male coupler (1), wherein the first portion of the pneumatic core (28) includes a surface (T) configured to engage and open a valve (17)after the air passageway is sealed to the male coupler (1), wherein an outer portion of the pneumatic core (28) includes a circumferential retainer-ring groove (G), and wherein the female coupler further includes a retainer ring (26) that is positioned in the retainer-ring groove (G) and configured to engage the retainer-ring groove (G) to prevent dislodgement of the pneumatic core (28) during operation.
In regards to claim 8, the air passageway (Langeveld 28) allows air to flow from a connected air source to a tire stem upon the actuation of a valve.
In regards to claims 9 and 20, Zimmerman discloses an air valve (14) having an input port (inlet end) and an output port (outlet end); and an air-pressure gauge (17) operatively coupled to the output port (outlet end), wherein the air valve (14) is configured to receive pressurized air from an air supply connected to the input port and to selectively open to allow air flow though the output port which is coupled to the air chuck (26), or to close to isolate the air supply from the air chuck and thus allow the air-pressure gauge to measure air pressure from the tire stem.
In regards to claim 10, Zimmerman further discloses an air valve (14) having an input port and an output port.
In regards to claims 11-14, Langeveld does not disclose the material from which the core or cap are made.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have constructed the core and cap from brass, since it was within the general skill of a worker to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use and for the purpose of easy machining and resistance to corrosion.
In regards to claims 15 and 16, Langeveld does not disclose the material from which the core or cap are made.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have constructed the core and cap from polymer, since it was within the general skill of a worker to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use and for the purpose of providing a lightweight coupler resistant to corrosion.
In regards to claim 18, Langeveld further teaches that the twist-on cap includes a through-hole that has bottom section with interior threads (31), a middle section that has a cylindrical wall (MS) of a first diameter and a upper section (US) that has a cylindrical wall of a second diameter that is smaller than the first diameter, wherein the pneumatic core (28) includes a cylindrical second portion (SP) that has a larger diameter than the first cylindrical portion and that is sized to rotatably fit in the middle section (MS) of the twist-on cap (23), and wherein the pneumatic core (28) includes a cylindrical third portion (25) that has a smaller diameter than the second cylindrical portion (SP) and is sized to rotatably fit in the upper section (US) of the twist-on cap (23), wherein the cylindrical third portion (25) of the pneumatic core includes a circumferential retainer-ring groove (G), and wherein the air chuck further includes a retainer ring (26) that is positioned in the retainer-ring groove (G) and configured to engage the retainer-ring groove (G), wherein the retainer ring (26) presses against a top surface of the twist-on cap (23) as the twist-on cap is rotated to disengage, and an inner ledge of the twist-on cap (23) presses against an outer ledge of the pneumatic core when the twist-on cap is rotated to engage on the male coupler by advancing on threads of the male coupler, in order to prevent dislodgement of the pneumatic core during operation.
In regards to claim 19, Langeveld teaches that the twist-on cap includes: a central channel having a first section (1S) having a cylindrical inner wall and a second section (2S) having a cylindrical inner wall that has a slightly larger diameter than first cylindrical inner wall, and a third section (3S) having a threaded inner wall that matches corresponding outer threads of a male coupler, wherein the first section, the second section and the third section are each centered on a central longitudinal axis, an inner planar ledge (IPL) located at a junction between the cylindrical inner wall of the first section and the cylindrical inner wall of the second section, and wherein the pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core includes: an air-hose attachment (27) section that facilitates attachment of an air hose, a first cylindrical section (25) that is sized to fit into, and easily rotate in the first section (1S) of the twist-on cap, a second cylindrical section (SP) that is sized to fit into, and easily rotate in the second section (2S) of the twist-on cap, an outer planar ledge (OPL) located at a junction between the first cylindrical section and the second cylindrical section of the pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core, wherein the inner planar ledge (IPL) of the twist-on cap presses against, and rotates relative to, the outer planar ledge (OPL) of the pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core as the twist-on cap is rotated to advance on threads of the tire stem, a circumferential groove (G) formed in the first cylindrical section of the pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core that receives and retains the retaining clip (26), a third cylindrical section (3S) that is sized to fit into an inner portion of the male coupler, wherein the third cylindrical section (3S) includes an O-ring groove (G), wherein the O-ring (S) is positioned at least partially in the O-ring groove (G), wherein the third cylindrical section (3S) includes a cylindrical depression formed in a bottom portion of the third cylindrical section, and wherein the cylindrical depression has a top surface (29), and an air passageway formed by a first hole from a top end of the pneumatic seal-and-valve-actuator core, and one or more spaced-apart bottom-drilled holes (30) through the top wall of the cylindrical depression, wherein the one or more spaced-apart bottom-drilled holes (30) open into the first hole to extend the air passageway from the bottom cylindrical depression to the first hole and wherein the top surface of the cylindrical depression, through which the spaced-apart one or more bottom-drilled holes are made, provides an actuating surface (T) that presses against a piston of a Schrader valve in a tire stem as the twist-on cap advances (23) on threads of a tire stem after the O-ring seals the air passageway to an inner portion of a tire stem.
Regarding "drilled" as recited in claim 19, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP 2113).
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12304256. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19212046 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and 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 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.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights