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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 and 23-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (earplug with diver’s helmet), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/29/26. Though claims 23-26 are presented as new claims without being withdrawn, these claims have been withdrawn by the Examiner as being drawn to the non-elected Invention that features a diver’s helmet.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17, 21, and 22, in the reply filed on 6/29/26 is acknowledged.
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: proper antecedent basis is required for the structure that creates an impedance mismatch with the fluid, the structure being vibrationally coupled to the earplug body, in claims 2, 3, 12, and 13.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the fluid” in claim 2, line 5 should be amended to recite --a fluid--
“a fluid” in claim 4, line 2 should be amended to recite --fluid--
“a fluid” in claim 7, line 2 should be amended to recite --fluid--
“the pressure” in claim 7, line 3 should be amended to recite --pressure--
“the pressure” in claim 7, line 4 should be amended to recite --pressure--
“an first umbrella” in claim 8, line 7 should be amended to recite --a first umbrella--
“the first” in claim 8, line 11 should be amended to recite --the second--
“an second umbrella on a second side” in claim 8, line 14 should be amended to recite --a second umbrella on the second side--
“a fluid” in claim 14, line 2 should be amended to recite --fluid--
“a fluid” in claim 16, line 2 should be amended to recite --fluid--
“the pressure” in claim 16, line 3 should be amended to recite --pressure--
“the pressure” in claim 16, line 4 should be amended to recite --pressure--
“an first umbrella” in claim 17, line 7 should be amended to recite --a first umbrella--
“the first” in claim 17, line 11 should be amended to recite --the second--
“an second umbrella on a second side” in claim 17, line 14 should be amended to recite --a second umbrella on the second side--
“the ear canal side” in claim 22, line 3 should be amended to recite --an ear canal side--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 2, 3, 12, and 13 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the claim limitation “a structure to create an impedance mismatch with the fluid” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description fails to mention or describe this structure that creates an impedance mismatch with the fluid. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on claims 2 and 12.
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 21 and 22 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.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the claim recites “a microphone in fluidic communication with one or both of the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator and the external atmosphere” in lines 2-4 of each claim. While the instant disclosure describes a microphone in conjunction with the earplug, the specifics of the microphone being in fluidic communication with one or both of the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator and the external atmosphere has not been described 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkins et al. US 7,740,104 B1 in view of Vlodaver et al. US 2011/0301572 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Parkins discloses a pressure-regulating earplug (fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 1-4) comprising:
an earplug body 11’/26 having an external surface adapted for sealingly engaging an ear canal (fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 12-17), the earplug body 11’/26 comprising a conduit configured to provide fluid communication with an external atmosphere and the ear canal (please see annotated fig. A below, which shows the conduit through which the external atmosphere and the ear canal are in fluid communication, when the pressure equalization valve 24 is open; conduit in this office action is being defined as “a means for transmitting or distributing”, as stated in Merriam-Webster); and
a sound blocking pressure regulator 24 in-line with the conduit (annotated fig. A; for the purposes of dependent claim 21, the pressure regulator is interpreted to further include all the internal components of the earplug of fig. 4 between faceplate 14’ and opening 25’ at the other end, as all of these components fall within the conduit between the external atmosphere and the inside of the ear canal and are thus along the pressure differential path), configured to be normally closed, preventing fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, and selectively open (col. 5, lines 1-11, the valve 24 opening to equalize pressure when a preset static pressure differential between the interior of earshell 11’ and ambient air is exceeded, but completely closed under normal conditions to form an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound), wherein the sound blocking pressure regulator 24 comprises:
a valve assembly 24 that acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission (col. 5, lines 1-11, pressure regulator 24 is a valve that forms an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound).
Parkins is silent on the sound blocking pressure regulator being bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization.
However, Vlodaver teaches an earplug (fig. 22) comprising an analogous pressure regulator 178 that is bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly 180/182 configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization (fig. 22 and [0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, the leaflets 180/182 would be capable of opening in each direction at pressure differentials that are similar in magnitude if the preselected fluid pressures are chosen as such).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sound blocking pressure regulator of Parkins to be bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization, as taught by Vlodaver, to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
557
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
annotated fig. A (adapted from fig. 4 of Parkins)
Regarding claim 2, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a first normally-closed passive valve 180 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction), wherein the first normally-closed passive valve 180 comprises a structure to create an impedance mismatch with the fluid (leaflet 180 would create an impedance mismatch with fluid attempting to pass through the valve when it is closed, because it forms a barrier to the natural flow of fluid), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the structure 180 being vibrationally coupled to the earplug body (figs. 22 and 23 and [0140], the leaflets 180/182 form a valve structure 178 that opens and closes under set fluid pressure differentials, indicating that when closed, the leaflets 180/182 form a seal with the surrounding earplug body; thus, since leaflets 180/182 are in direct, continuous contact with the earplug body, they are vibrationally coupled, as vibration in either component would transfer to the other), to form a fluid-tight seal when necessary beneath select fluid pressure differentials.
Regarding claim 4, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the first normally-closed passive valve 180 being configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal when pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere, the first pressure differential, by a first opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 180 would be capable of opening at a first threshold pressure differential in a first direction when the pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential, wherein a first normally-closed passive valve 180 and the second normally-closed passive valve 182 are disposed in parallel ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction; further, please see annotated fig. B below, which shows how the leaflets are situated next to each other in parallel as demonstrated by the parallel dashed lines), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal, the second pressure differential, by a second opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the second threshold pressure differential in the second direction when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the earplug body 126 comprising a flanged earplug (figs. 21 and 22 and [0135], ear canal engaging portion 126 has three disks/flanges 134/136/138), to increase the comfort and sealing ability of the earplug.
Regarding claim 11, Parkins discloses a pressure-regulating earplug (fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 1-4) comprising:
an earplug body 11’/26 having an external surface adapted for sealingly engaging an ear canal (fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 12-17), the earplug body 11’/26 comprising a conduit configured to provide fluid communication with an external atmosphere and the ear canal (annotated fig. A, which shows the conduit through which the external atmosphere and the ear canal are in fluid communication, when the pressure equalization valve 24 is open; conduit in this office action is being defined as “a means for transmitting or distributing”, as stated in Merriam-Webster); and
a sound blocking pressure regulator 24 in-line with the conduit (annotated fig. A; for the purposes of dependent claim 22, the pressure regulator is interpreted to further include all the internal components of the earplug of fig. 4 between faceplate 14’ and opening 25’ at the other end, as all of these components fall within the conduit between the external atmosphere and the inside of the ear canal and are thus along the pressure differential path), configured to be normally closed, preventing fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, and selectively open (col. 5, lines 1-11, the valve 24 opening to equalize pressure when a preset static pressure differential between the interior of earshell 11’ and ambient air is exceeded, but completely closed under normal conditions to form an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound), the sound blocking pressure regulator 24 comprises:
a valve assembly 24 that acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission (col. 5, lines 1-11, pressure regulator 24 is a valve that forms an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound); and
a speaker 17 in fluidic communication with the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator 24 (col. 4, lines 24-28, sound generating transducer 17 (i.e., speaker); annotated fig. A, speaker 17 being in fluidic communication with the conduit on the ear canal side (i.e., downstream) of the valve 24).
Parkins is silent on the sound blocking pressure regulator being bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization.
However, Vlodaver teaches an earplug (fig. 22) comprising an analogous pressure regulator 178 that is bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly 180/182 configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization (fig. 22 and [0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, the leaflets 180/182 would be capable of opening in each direction at pressure differentials that are similar in magnitude if the preselected fluid pressures are chosen as such).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sound blocking pressure regulator of Parkins to be bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization, as taught by Vlodaver, to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a first normally-closed passive valve 180 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction), wherein the first normally-closed passive valve 180 comprises a structure to create an impedance mismatch with the fluid (leaflet 180 would create an impedance mismatch with fluid attempting to pass through the valve when it is closed, because it forms a barrier to the natural flow of fluid), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 13, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the structure 180 being vibrationally coupled to the earplug body (figs. 22 and 23 and [0140], the leaflets 180/182 form a valve structure 178 that opens and closes under set fluid pressure differentials, indicating that when closed, the leaflets 180/182 form a seal with the surrounding earplug body; thus, since leaflets 180/182 are in direct, continuous contact with the earplug body, they are vibrationally coupled, as vibration in either component would transfer to the other), to form a fluid-tight seal when necessary beneath select fluid pressure differentials.
Regarding claim 14, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the first normally-closed passive valve 180 being configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal when pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere, the first pressure differential, by a first opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 180 would be capable of opening at a first threshold pressure differential in a first direction when the pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential, wherein a first normally-closed passive valve 180 and the second normally-closed passive valve 182 are disposed in parallel ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction; further, annotated fig. B, which shows how the leaflets are situated next to each other in parallel as demonstrated by the parallel dashed lines), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal, the second pressure differential, by a second opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the second threshold pressure differential in the second direction when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 21, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Parkins further discloses the sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator further comprising a microphone 21 in fluidic communication with one or both of the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator and the external atmosphere (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 27-28, microphone 21 being in fluid communication with the external atmosphere via the conduit).
Regarding claim 22, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Parkins further discloses the sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator further comprising a microphone 21 in fluidic communication with one or both of the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator and the external atmosphere (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 27-28, microphone 21 being in fluid communication with the external atmosphere via the conduit).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkins et al. US 7,740,104 B1 in view of Vlodaver et al. US 2011/0301572 A1 further in view of George et al. US 2016/0151206 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Parkins in view of Vlodaver is silent on the first opening threshold being a pressure differential from about 0.1 psi to about 1.5 psi.
However, George teaches an earplug 1 with a valve 58 (fig. 5) having an opening threshold at a pressure differential from about 0.1 psi to about 1.5 psi ([0102], valve 58 can interrupt fluid flow until the pressure differential exceeds a preselected differential with amplitude in a range of 0 kpa to about 50 kpa, or 0 psi to ~7.25 psi, which includes the range of 0.1-1.5 psi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the valve assembly opening threshold of Parkins in view of Vlodaver to be at a pressure differential from about 0.1 psi to about 1.5 psi, as taught by George, which is prima facie obvious since the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”), and further to enhance the regulation of the fluid flow of the conduit ([0007]), thereby allowing the pressure in the ear canals of the user to be adjusted to alleviate user discomfort ([0106]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parkins et al. US 7,740,104 B1 in view of Vlodaver et al. US 2011/0301572 A1 further in view of Banco et al. US 2019/0038393 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Parkins in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Parkins in view of Vlodaver is silent on the sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator comprising any of silicone, fluorosilicone, fluoroelastomer, perfluoroelastomer, nitrile, ethylene propylene, natural rubber, butyl, polyisoprene, or any combination thereof.
However, Banco teaches a two-way valve assembly 16 for a medical device (fig. 2 and [0087]) comprising any of silicone, fluorosilicone, fluoroelastomer, perfluoroelastomer, nitrile, ethylene propylene, natural rubber, butyl, polyisoprene, or any combination thereof ([0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the pressure regulator of Parkins in view of Vlodaver to comprise any of silicone, fluorosilicone, fluoroelastomer, perfluoroelastomer, nitrile, ethylene propylene, natural rubber, butyl, polyisoprene, or any combination thereof, as taught by Banco, which is prima facie obvious due to the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (please see MPEP 2144.07, In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), "selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious"; in this instance, the selection of these materials to make a two-way valve for use on the human body that has been made of this material prior to the invention is obvious).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 8 and 17, the prior art of record when applied alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the valve assembly further comprises: a flange dividing the conduit; a first normally-closed passive valve located at the flange, the first normally-closed passive valve comprising: at least a first orifice passing through the flange; and an first umbrella on a first side of the flange and configured to normally seal the at least a first orifice at the first side of the flange and selectively unseal the at least a first orifice when pressure on a second side of the flange exceeds pressure at the first side of the flange by the first pressure differential; and a second normally-closed passive valve located at the flange, the first normally-closed passive valve comprising: at least a second orifice passing through the flange; and an second umbrella on a second side of the flange and configured to normally seal the at least a second orifice at the second side of the flange and selectively unseal the at least a second orifice when pressure on the first side of the flange exceeds pressure at the second side of the flange by the second pressure differential, in combination with all other features recited in the claim.
Parkins in view of Vlodaver is the closest prior art combination of record and discloses the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 11. However, Parkins and Vlodaver fail to disclose or teach in combination the limitations of claims 8 and 17, as the valve assembly taught by Vlodaver features hemicylindrical leaflets 180 and 182 rather than umbrella valves at a first and second side of a flange. Furthermore, no other reference to date has been found in the prior art that would be able to properly modify Parkins in view of Vlodaver to address its deficiencies.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 1-7, 9-16, 21, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,245,917 B2 in view of Parkins et al. US 7,740,104 B1 further in view of Vlodaver et al. US 2011/0301572 A1.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent claims the entirety of the claim except for the pressure regulator being a sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator, configured to attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, the pressure regulator comprising a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization, wherein the valve assembly acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission.
However, Parkins teaches a pressure-regulating earplug (fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 1-4) comprising: a sound blocking pressure regulator 24 (annotated fig. A), configured to attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal (col. 5, lines 1-11, the valve 24 opening to equalize pressure when a preset static pressure differential between the interior of earshell 11’ and ambient air is exceeded, but completely closed under normal conditions to form an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound), wherein the sound blocking pressure regulator 24 comprises: a valve assembly 24 that acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission (col. 5, lines 1-11, pressure regulator 24 is a valve that forms an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the pressure regulator of the patent to be configured to attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, the pressure regulator comprising a valve assembly that acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission, as taught by Parkins, to protect the wearer from damage to the ear canal from loud sounds.
The patent in view of Parkins is silent on the sound blocking pressure regulator being bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization.
However, Vlodaver teaches an earplug (fig. 22) comprising an analogous pressure regulator 178 that is bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly 180/182 configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization (fig. 22 and [0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, the leaflets 180/182 would be capable of opening in each direction at pressure differentials that are similar in magnitude if the preselected fluid pressures are chosen as such).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sound blocking pressure regulator of the patent in view of Parkins to be bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization, as taught by Vlodaver, to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 2, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a first normally-closed passive valve 180 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction), wherein the first normally-closed passive valve 180 comprises a structure to create an impedance mismatch with the fluid (leaflet 180 would create an impedance mismatch with fluid attempting to pass through the valve when it is closed, because it forms a barrier to the natural flow of fluid), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 3, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the structure 180 being vibrationally coupled to the earplug body (figs. 22 and 23 and [0140], the leaflets 180/182 form a valve structure 178 that opens and closes under set fluid pressure differentials, indicating that when closed, the leaflets 180/182 form a seal with the surrounding earplug body; thus, since leaflets 180/182 are in direct, continuous contact with the earplug body, they are vibrationally coupled, as vibration in either component would transfer to the other), to form a fluid-tight seal when necessary beneath select fluid pressure differentials.
Regarding claim 4, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the first normally-closed passive valve 180 being configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal when pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere, the first pressure differential, by a first opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 180 would be capable of opening at a first threshold pressure differential in a first direction when the pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 5, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential, wherein a first normally-closed passive valve 180 and the second normally-closed passive valve 182 are disposed in parallel ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction; further, please see annotated fig. B, which shows how the leaflets are situated next to each other in parallel as demonstrated by the parallel dashed lines), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 7, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal, the second pressure differential, by a second opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the second threshold pressure differential in the second direction when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 9, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the earplug body 126 comprising a flanged earplug (figs. 21 and 22 and [0135], ear canal engaging portion 126 has three disks/flanges 134/136/138), to increase the comfort and sealing ability of the earplug.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of the patent claims the entirety of the claim except for the pressure regulator being a sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator, configured to attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, the pressure regulator comprising a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization, wherein the valve assembly acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission; and a speaker in fluidic communication with the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator.
However, Parkins teaches a pressure-regulating earplug (fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 1-4) comprising: a sound blocking pressure regulator 24 (annotated fig. A), configured to attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal (col. 5, lines 1-11, the valve 24 opening to equalize pressure when a preset static pressure differential between the interior of earshell 11’ and ambient air is exceeded, but completely closed under normal conditions to form an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound), wherein the sound blocking pressure regulator 24 comprises: a valve assembly 24 that acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission (col. 5, lines 1-11, pressure regulator 24 is a valve that forms an airtight seal preventing transmission of any sound); and a speaker 17 in fluidic communication with the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator 24 (col. 4, lines 24-28, sound generating transducer 17 (i.e., speaker); annotated fig. A, speaker 17 being in fluidic communication with the conduit on the ear canal side (i.e., downstream) of the valve 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the pressure regulator of the patent to be configured to attenuate noise communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, the pressure regulator comprising a valve assembly that acoustically seals when closed to minimize sound transmission, and a speaker in fluidic communication with the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator, as taught by Parkins, to protect the wearer from damage to the ear canal from loud sounds.
The patent in view of Parkins is silent on the sound blocking pressure regulator being bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization.
However, Vlodaver teaches an earplug (fig. 22) comprising an analogous pressure regulator 178 that is bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly 180/182 configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization (fig. 22 and [0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, the leaflets 180/182 would be capable of opening in each direction at pressure differentials that are similar in magnitude if the preselected fluid pressures are chosen as such).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the sound blocking pressure regulator of the patent in view of Parkins to be bidirectional and comprising: a valve assembly configured to automatically open at a first pressure differential and a second pressure differential, wherein the first pressure differential and the second pressure differential are substantially similar in magnitude and opposite in direction enabling bidirectional pressure equalization, as taught by Vlodaver, to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 12, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a first normally-closed passive valve 180 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction), wherein the first normally-closed passive valve 180 comprises a structure to create an impedance mismatch with the fluid (leaflet 180 would create an impedance mismatch with fluid attempting to pass through the valve when it is closed, because it forms a barrier to the natural flow of fluid), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 13, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the structure 180 being vibrationally coupled to the earplug body (figs. 22 and 23 and [0140], the leaflets 180/182 form a valve structure 178 that opens and closes under set fluid pressure differentials, indicating that when closed, the leaflets 180/182 form a seal with the surrounding earplug body; thus, since leaflets 180/182 are in direct, continuous contact with the earplug body, they are vibrationally coupled, as vibration in either component would transfer to the other), to form a fluid-tight seal when necessary beneath select fluid pressure differentials.
Regarding claim 14, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the first normally-closed passive valve 180 being configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal when pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere, the first pressure differential, by a first opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 180 would be capable of opening at a first threshold pressure differential in a first direction when the pressure within the ear canal exceeds pressure within the external atmosphere), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 15, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the valve assembly 178 further comprising a second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to automatically open by at least the first pressure differential or the second pressure differential, wherein a first normally-closed passive valve 180 and the second normally-closed passive valve 182 are disposed in parallel ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the first pressure differential in the first direction and the second pressure differential in the second direction; further, annotated fig. B, which shows how the leaflets are situated next to each other in parallel as demonstrated by the parallel dashed lines), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 16, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Vlodaver further teaches the second normally-closed passive valve 182 configured to permit a fluid communication between the external atmosphere and the ear canal, when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal, the second pressure differential, by a second opening threshold ([0140], leaflets 180/182 forming valve structure 178 are resilient and allows the valve structure 178 to open in either direction under a preselected fluid pressure and close below the preselected fluid pressure; thus, leaflet 182 would be capable of opening at the second threshold pressure differential in the second direction when the pressure within the external atmosphere exceeds the pressure within the ear canal), to regulate the pressure based on the pressure inside the ear canal and in the external environment using a single valve assembly.
Regarding claim 21, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Parkins further teaches the sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator further comprising a microphone 21 in fluidic communication with one or both of the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator and the external atmosphere (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 27-28, microphone 21 being in fluid communication with the external atmosphere via the conduit), to allow the wearer to communicate while wearing the earplug.
Regarding claim 22, the patent in view of Parkins further in view of Vlodaver discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Parkins further teaches the sound blocking bidirectional pressure regulator further comprising a microphone 21 in fluidic communication with one or both of the conduit on an ear canal side of the pressure regulator and the external atmosphere (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 27-28, microphone 21 being in fluid communication with the external atmosphere via the conduit), to allow the wearer to communicate while wearing the earplug.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 17, the prior art of record when applied alone or in combination neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the valve assembly further comprises: a flange dividing the conduit; a first normally-closed passive valve located at the flange, the first normally-closed passive valve comprising: at least a first orifice passing through the flange; and an first umbrella on a first side of the flange and configured to normally seal the at least a first orifice at the first side of the flange and selectively unseal the at least a first orifice when pressure on a second side of the flange exceeds pressure at the first side of the flange by the first pressure differential; and a second normally-closed passive valve located at the flange, the second normally-closed passive valve comprising: at least a second orifice passing through the flange; and an second umbrella on a second side of the flange and configured to normally seal the at least a second orifice at the second side of the flange and selectively unseal the at least a second orifice when pressure on the first side of the flange exceeds pressure at the second side of the flange by the second pressure differential. Parkins in view of Vlodaver is the closest prior art of record and discloses the base claims 1 and 11, as detailed above. However, Parkins in view of Vlodaver is silent on the structure of the valve assembly as specifically claimed in claims 8 and 17. Furthermore, no other reference to date has been found in the prior art that would be able to properly modify Parkins in view of Vlodaver to address its deficiencies.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements and address the Double Patenting Rejection above, or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, ALIREZA NIA can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights