DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on June 8, 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1, 8, 9, and 17, cancelled Claims 18 and 19, and added Claim 21. Claims 1 – 17, 20, and 21 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous objections to the abstract are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous claim objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous double patenting rejections stand and the rejections are amended to account for claim amendments made in the response of June 8, 2026.
Previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
With regards to prior art rejections of Claims 1 and 17, applicant’s amendments overcome the previous grounds of rejection. New grounds of rejection are added below incorporating the Wang (CN 102094886) reference and rendering applicant’s arguments with regards to Claim 1 moot. The amendments to claim 17 specify an order to the method in addition to the counterbore, and thus Claim 17 and its dependents are allowed.
With regards to prior art rejections of Claim 9, applicant’s amendments do not overcome the prior art.
Applicant amended Claim 9 to add that the plurality of teeth are configured to be engaged with the retainer to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, and the retainer prior to connection of the reed valve assembly to the compressor, wherein the reed valve assembly is mounted to the compressor by inserting the retainer into the compressor mounting opening. Claim 9 is an apparatus claim. By reciting language that a connection occurs before some other connection, applicant is attempting to incorporate process language into the claim. As per MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In the instant claim, Bredel teaches the claimed final product. Because Claim 9 is an apparatus claim, the method required to eventually get to that final product is immaterial to the product itself, absent a non-obvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Applicant further argues that the plurality of teeth shown in Bredel do not engage with the retainer, instead merely projecting downwards. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant may be looking at the projections from the recesses of the opening in reed valve (8) as opposed to the “teeth” circumferentially between these recesses. Even if the teeth did project downwards in a manner argued by applicant, presumably into the mapped compressor mounting opening since any other configuration would preclude the reed valve (8) from properly seating on the seat plate (1), then the teeth would still perform the task of engaging with the retainer to retain a relative position of the reed, backer and retainer. If the teeth projected into the compressor mounting opening, this would require the retainer to have a diameter smaller than the compressor mounting opening and the opening formed by the teeth. A smaller diameter would allow undesirable movement of the valve assembly in a direction parallel to the seat plate. Looking at Figure 1, the retainer has approximately the same diameter as the compressor mounting opening, with a threaded portion corresponding to the nut (12). The teeth are shown as abutting the retainer. If the teeth did not abut and engage the retainer, this would allow undesirable relative movement between the reed (8) and the seat plate (1) or the reed and the backer (10). Previous grounds of rejection with regards to Claim 9 and its dependents stand.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 18 of US 12180967 in view of Zhao et al. (hereafter “Zhao” – CN 115045819) and Wang (CN 102094886). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the comparative table below:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of US 12180967
An antirotation valve system comprising:
a compressor including a compressor surface defining at least one valve opening, a counterbore, and a mounting opening;
a reed valve assembly comprising:
a reed including a reed mounting opening, wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening;
a backer having a backer mounting opening;
a retainer, wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening; and
a washer including an annular wall defining a washer opening that is sized and shaped to receive the retainer extended through the reed mounting opening and the backer mounting opening to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, the washer, and the retainer, wherein the counterbore is sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore
An antirotation valve system, wherein the valve system comprises:
a compressor including a compressor surface defining at least one valve opening and a mounting opening;
a reed including a reed mounting opening and a reed antirotation slot, wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening, wherein the reed antirotation slot includes an arched cutout positioned on a boundary edge of the reed and wherein a portion of the arched cutout has the same radius of curvature as a radius of curvature of the reed mounting opening; and
a backer having a backer mounting opening and a backer antirotation protrusion sized and shaped to engage with the reed antirotation slot preventing rotation between the reed and the backer, wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by a fastener extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening.
As seen above, the US Patent recites all features except for the retainer and the washer with the counterbore.
Zhao (Figures 2, 4) teaches a reed valve assembly for a compressor, including a reed (22), a backer (60), as well as a retainer (bolt 70), wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening (see Figure 2); and a washer (unlabeled nut shown threaded to bolt 70 in Figure 4 – note that as per Paragraph 60 of the instant disclosure: “In one embodiment, the washer 450 is a threaded nut wherein the inner surface 454 includes threads that may be threadably engaged with threads, not shown, of the retainer 430”, making a nut qualify as a washer under BRI) including an annular wall defining a washer opening that is sized and shaped to receive the retainer extended through the reed mounting opening and the backer mounting opening to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, the washer, and the retainer (as shown in Figure 4). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, a retainer and a washer (i.e. nut) are known fasteners combinations that secure the reed valve assembly together, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of the US Patent to include a retainer and washer as shown in Zhao in order to yield the predictable results described above.
Wang teaches a bolt connection including a washer element (1) configured to aid in preventing upward motion of a retainer (3). In one embodiment (Figure 7), the washer is positioned on an outside of a plate (7), in a configuration similar to the nut of Zhao. In another embodiment (Figure 8), the washer is positioned in a counterbore sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore (see Paragraph 34). As per Wang, this provided a better stopping effect of motion of the retainer (Paragraph 34: “As shown in Figure 8, a kidney-shaped stop washer 1 is selected, and the corresponding groove 9 is also kidney-shaped, so that the kidney-shaped stop washer 1 can be located in it and cannot rotate. In this way, the bolt 3 will not only not move upward, but also will not rotate in the direction of tightening, resulting in a better stopping effect”). MPEP 2143C teaches it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. In this case, the known technique is the use of a counterbore sized and shaped to receive a washer or equivalent structure that acts to prevent upward motion of a retainer (i.e. similar to the nut of Zhao), and the improvement lies in the counterbore further restraining its motion by limiting rotation as well. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of the US Patent to include a counterbore with the washer/nut in order to yield the predictable improvements described above.
Although no comparative table is shown, Claims 2 – 8 and 17, 20, and 21 are also rejected over the US Patent in view of Zhao, or further in view of one of the prior art references relied on below.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of US Application number 18/970,300 in view of Zhao et al. (hereafter “Zhao” – CN 115045819) and Wang (CN 102094886). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the comparative table below:
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of App 18/970,300
An antirotation valve system comprising:
a compressor including a compressor surface defining at least one valve opening, a counterbore, and a mounting opening;
a reed valve assembly comprising:
a reed including a reed mounting opening, wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening;
a backer having a backer mounting opening;
a retainer, wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening; and
a washer including an annular wall defining a washer opening that is sized and shaped to receive the retainer extended through the reed mounting opening and the backer mounting opening to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, the washer, and the retainer, wherein the counterbore is sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore
An antirotation valve system comprising:
a compressor including a compressor surface defining at least one valve opening, a single compressor mounting opening, and a single compressor antirotation opening;
a reed including a reed body defining a reed mounting opening and a single reed antirotation slot, wherein the reed antirotation slot is formed on a rear boundary edge of the reed body and extends inward into the reed body from the rear boundary edge, wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening; and
a backer including a backer body having a rear portion defining a backer mounting opening, and a backer antirotation protrusion extending from the rear portion, wherein the backer antirotation protrusion is sized and shaped to engage with the reed antirotation slot preventing rotation between the reed and the backer, wherein a width of the backer antirotation protrusion is narrower than a width of the rear portion, wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by a fastener extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening.
As seen above, the US Patent recites all features except for the washer (the “fastener” of the US application claim is equivalent to the “retainer” of the instant claim) and the counterbore. Zhao (Figures 2, 4) teaches a reed valve assembly for a compressor, including a reed (22), a backer (60), as well as a retainer (bolt 70), wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening (see Figure 2); and a washer (unlabeled nut shown threaded to bolt 70 in Figure 4 – note that as per Paragraph 60 of the instant disclosure: “In one embodiment, the washer 450 is a threaded nut wherein the inner surface 454 includes threads that may be threadably engaged with threads, not shown, of the retainer 430”, making a nut qualify as a washer under BRI) including an annular wall defining a washer opening that is sized and shaped to receive the retainer extended through the reed mounting opening and the backer mounting opening to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, the washer, and the retainer (as shown in Figure 4). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, a retainer and a washer (i.e. nut) are known fasteners combinations that secure the reed valve assembly together, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of the US application to include a retainer and washer as shown in Zhao in order to yield the predictable results described above.
Wang teaches a bolt connection including a washer element (1) configured to aid in preventing upward motion of a retainer (3). In one embodiment (Figure 7), the washer is positioned on an outside of a plate (7), in a configuration similar to the nut of Zhao. In another embodiment (Figure 8), the washer is positioned in a counterbore sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore (see Paragraph 34). As per Wang, this provided a better stopping effect of motion of the retainer (Paragraph 34: “As shown in Figure 8, a kidney-shaped stop washer 1 is selected, and the corresponding groove 9 is also kidney-shaped, so that the kidney-shaped stop washer 1 can be located in it and cannot rotate. In this way, the bolt 3 will not only not move upward, but also will not rotate in the direction of tightening, resulting in a better stopping effect”). MPEP 2143C teaches it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. In this case, the known technique is the use of a counterbore sized and shaped to receive a washer or equivalent structure that acts to prevent upward motion of a retainer (i.e. similar to the nut of Zhao), and the improvement lies in the counterbore further restraining its motion by limiting rotation as well. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of the US Patent to include a counterbore with the washer/nut in order to yield the predictable improvements described above.
Although no comparative table is shown, Claims 2 – 8, 17, 20 and 21 are also rejected over the US application in view of Zhao, or further in view of one of the prior art references relied on below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bredel (DE 10-2021-121592 A).
With regards to Claim 9:
Bredel discloses an antirotation valve system (Figure 2) comprising:
a compressor (abstract: “compressor”) including a compressor surface (valve seat plate 1) defining at least one valve opening (valve opening 5) and a mounting opening (see annotated Figure below);
a reed valve assembly comprising:
a retainer (screw 11);
a reed (valve blade 8) including a wall defining a reed mounting opening (see annotated Figure below) sized and shaped to receive the retainer (screw 11) extending therethrough, wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening, the wall includes a plurality of teeth configured to be engaged with the retainer (see annotated Figure below); and
a backer (valve limiter 10) having a backer mounting opening (see annotated Figure below);
wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening (see Figure 2), wherein when the plurality of teeth are configured to be engaged with the retainer to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, and the retainer (see Figure 2) prior to connection of the reed valve assembly to the compressor, wherein the reed valve assembly is mounted to the compressor by inserting the retainer into the compressor mounting opening (this qualifies as product-by-process language which imparts no additional structure to the final product - As per MPEP 2113, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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 of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (hereafter “Lee” – US 2020/0032797) in view of Wang (CN 102094886).
With regards to Claim 1:
Lee discloses an antirotation valve system (Figures 1 – 3B) comprising:
a compressor (scroll compressor 10) including a compressor surface (plate part 215) defining at least one valve opening (discharge port 211) and a mounting opening (unlabeled, see Figure 2, fastening hole in surface 215 which fastener 700 extends into);
a reed valve assembly comprising:
a reed (reed valve 500) including a reed mounting opening (fastening portion 510 with hole for fastener 700), wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening (see Figures 3A, 3B, Paragraph 66);
a backer (retainer 600) having a backer mounting opening (fixing portion 610 having hole for fastener 700);
a retainer (fastener 700), wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening (see Figures 2 – 3B and Paragraph 85); and
a washer (spacing member 710, which “may be a washer of a predetermined thickness”, Paragraph 77) including an annular wall defining a washer opening that is sized and shaped to receive the retainer extended through the reed mounting opening and the backer mounting opening to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, the washer, and the retainer (as shown in Figures 2 – 3B, see Paragraph 77, 85).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a counterbore or that the counterbore is sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore. Wang teaches a bolt connection including a washer element (1) configured to aid in preventing upward motion of a retainer (3). In one embodiment (Figure 7), the washer is positioned on an outside of a plate (7), in a configuration similar to the washer of Lee. In another embodiment (Figure 8), the washer is positioned in a counterbore sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore (see Paragraph 34). As per Wang, this provided a better stopping effect of motion of the retainer (Paragraph 34: “As shown in Figure 8, a kidney-shaped stop washer 1 is selected, and the corresponding groove 9 is also kidney-shaped, so that the kidney-shaped stop washer 1 can be located in it and cannot rotate. In this way, the bolt 3 will not only not move upward, but also will not rotate in the direction of tightening, resulting in a better stopping effect”). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, stop washers are known in the art, and forming counterbores for said stop washers is also known. Given the teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by adding a stop washer and fixing the stop washer into a counterbore on the plate (215) of Lee in order to yield the predictable benefits described above, notably preventing both upward and rotational movement of the fastener/retainer (700).
With regards to Claim 2:
The Lee modification of Claim 1 teaches the washer includes an inner surface defining a boundary of the washer opening (opening 2, Figure 5 of Wang), wherein the inner surface includes a plurality of teeth (teeth 5, Figure 5 of Wang) protruding radially inward.
With regards to Claim 3:
The Lee modification of Claim 2 teaches each of the plurality of teeth include one or more rounded portions (see Figure 5 of Wang, radially inner portion of teeth 5 engaging the bolt 3 are rounded to match radius of opening 2).
With regards to Claim 4:
The Lee modification of Claim 2 teaches each of the plurality of teeth include a portion that extends vertically beyond an upper surface of the annular wall (see Figure 3 of Wang, teeth 5 extend vertically, see also Paragraphs 30 – 33 of Wang).
Claims 1 and 5 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN 115045819 A) in view of Wang (CN 102094886).
With regards to Claim 1:
Zhao discloses an antirotation valve system (Figures 2, 4) comprising:
a compressor (Paragraph 26: “This invention relates to a valve plate assembly for use in conjunction with a compressor to complete the intake or exhaust process”) including a compressor surface (valve plate 10) defining at least one valve opening exhaust hole 11) and a mounting opening (screw hole 12);
a reed valve assembly comprising:
a reed (reed 22) including a reed mounting opening (unlabeled hole on fixing part 21 of reed 22, see annotated Figure 2 below), wherein the reed is positionable between an open position where the reed does not obstruct the at least one valve opening and a closed position wherein the reed blocks at least a portion of the valve opening (Paragraph 29);
a backer (limiting plate 60) having a backer mounting opening (unlabeled hole on limiting plate 60 into which bolt 70 extends through, see annotated Figure 2 below);
a retainer (bolt 70), wherein the reed and the backer are mounted to the compressor by the retainer extending through the reed mounting opening, the backer mounting opening, and into the compressor mounting opening (see Figures 2, 4, and Paragraphs 27, 38); and
a washer (see unlabeled nut connected to bolt 70 in Figure 4, see annotated Figure 4 below – note that as per Paragraph 60 of the instant disclosure: “In one embodiment, the washer 450 is a threaded nut wherein the inner surface 454 includes threads that may be threadably engaged with threads, not shown, of the retainer 430”, making a nut qualify as a washer under BRI) including an annular wall defining a washer opening that is sized and shaped to receive the retainer extended through the reed mounting opening and the backer mounting opening to retain a relative position of the reed, the backer, the washer, and the retainer (see Figure 4 and Paragraphs 27, 38, bolt goes through nut so it must have an opening).
PNG
media_image2.png
679
950
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
429
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhao does not explicitly disclose a counterbore or that the counterbore is sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore. Wang teaches a bolt connection including a washer element (1) configured to aid in preventing upward motion of a retainer (3). In one embodiment (Figure 7), the washer is positioned on an outside of a plate (7), in a configuration similar to the nut of Zhao. In another embodiment (Figure 8), the washer is positioned in a counterbore sized and shaped to receive the washer therein such that the washer is fixed within the counterbore (see Paragraph 34). As per Wang, this provided a better stopping effect of motion of the retainer (Paragraph 34: “As shown in Figure 8, a kidney-shaped stop washer 1 is selected, and the corresponding groove 9 is also kidney-shaped, so that the kidney-shaped stop washer 1 can be located in it and cannot rotate. In this way, the bolt 3 will not only not move upward, but also will not rotate in the direction of tightening, resulting in a better stopping effect”). MPEP 2143C teaches it is obvious to use a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. In this case, the known technique is the use of a counterbore sized and shaped to receive a washer or equivalent structure that acts to prevent upward motion of a retainer (i.e. similar to the nut of Zhao), and the improvement lies in the counterbore further restraining its motion by limiting rotation as well. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zhao to include a counterbore with the washer/nut in order to yield the predictable improvements described above.
With regards to Claim 5:
The Zhao modification of Claim 1 teaches the reed includes a reed antirotation feature positioned a distance away from an edge of the reed (see annotated Figure 2 of Zhao in rejection of Claim 1, unlabeled hole next to the reed mounting opening).
With regards to Claim 6:
The Zhao modification of Claim 1 teaches the backer includes a backer antirotation feature sized and shaped to be received within a reed antirotation feature such that the backer antirotation feature extends completely through the reed (see annotated Figures 2 and 4 of Zhao in rejection of Claim 1, backer anti-rotation feature shown extending downwards so as to go through the reed anti-rotation feature and the compressor anti-rotation opening).
With regards to Claim 7:
The Zhao modification of Claim 1 teaches when the reed antirotation feature is engaged with the backer antirotation feature, the reed mounting opening is axially aligned with the backer mounting opening (see annotated Figures 2 and 4 of Zhao in rejection of Claim 1).
With regards to Claim 8:
The Zhao modification of Claim 1 teaches a compressor surface defines the compressor antirotation opening configured to engage with the backer antirotation feature (see annotated Figures 2 and 4 of Zhao in rejection of Claim 1, backer anti-rotation feature engages with compression anti-rotation opening).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredel (DE 10-2021-121592 A) in view of Koubek (US 2290056).
With regards to Claim 10:
Bredel does not explicitly disclose the teeth are triangular. As per MPEP 2144, changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Applicant has not shown in evidence of the criticality of the shape of the teeth. Nevertheless, Koubek (Figures 3 – 5) teaches a lock washer (10) connecting to a threaded fastener (30) wherein the lock washer has substantially triangularly teeth (18, see Col. 1, Lines 42 – 45) such that it may “readily slipped over the shank of the bolt” (ld). Given the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bredel by making the teeth triangular to yield the predictable results described above.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredel (DE 10-2021-121592 A) in view of Teal (US 2005/0135896).
With regards to Claim 11:
Bredel does not explicitly disclose the teeth include rounded portions. As per MPEP 2144, changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Applicant has not shown in evidence of the criticality of the shape of the teeth. Nevertheless, Teal (Figures 2 – 3A) teaches fasteners (threaded stud 54) used in conjunction with washers (push nut 48), wherein the washers includes an inner surface defining a boundary of the washer opening (opening 52), wherein the inner surface includes a plurality of teeth protruding radially inward (teeth 56), wherein each of the plurality of teeth include one or more rounded portions (see Figure 2 of Teal, radially inner portion of teeth 56 engaging the stud are rounded to match radius of opening 52). This rounding allows for the teeth to jam the push nut into engagement with the stud, preventing its removal under axial force (Paragraph 20). Given the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bredel by making the teeth partially rounded to yield the predictable results described above.
With regards to Claim 12:
The Bredel modification of Claim 11 teaches each of the plurality of teeth include a portion that extends vertically beyond an upper surface of the annular wall (see Figures 3, 3A of Teal, teeth 56 are long and form an orientation angle with stud, see Paragraph 20).
Claims 13 – 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bredel (DE 10-2021-121592 A) in view of Ahn (KR 1998-0077165).
With regards to Claims 13, 14, and 16:
Bredel does not explicitly disclose the reed includes a reed antirotation feature positioned a distance away from an edge of the reed or the backer includes a backer antirotation feature sized and shaped to be received within a reed antirotation feature such that the backer antirotation feature extends completely through the reed. Ahn (Figure 4) teaches a compressor including a reed (52), a backer (53), and a retainer (54), wherein the reed includes a reed antirotation feature (unlabeled hole in reed 52 through which embossing portion 53’’ extends downward through), the backer includes an antirotation feature (embossing portion 53’’) sized to engage with the reed antirotation feature, and the compressor includes a compressor surface (51) defining an compression anti-rotation opening (groove 51b) configured to engage with the backer anti-rotation feature. Ahn teaches that “by forming the anti-rotation embossing 53 and the embossing insertion groove (51b), the rivet is not necessary to prevent the separate rotation in a simple structure, there is an effect such that not only the parts are reduced, but also the number of assembly labor” (see abstract). In other words, the feature prevents undesired rotation of the reed valve assembly without requiring a second retainer/fastener. MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bredel by adding antirotation features on the reed, backer, and compressor as shown in Ahn in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
With regards to Claim 15:
The Bredel modification of Claim 14 teaches when the reed antirotation feature is engaged with the backer antirotation feature, the reed mounting opening is axially aligned with the backer mounting opening (see Figure 4 of Ahn, mounting openings align to allow rivet 54 to extend through all when embossed portion 53’’ aligns with groove 51b).
With regards to Claim 21:
The Bredel modification of Claim 13 does not explicitly teach the reed mounting opening is centrally located along a length of the reed. As per the modification, an anti-rotation feature is included in Bredel, which may require that the retainer and reed mounting opening is shifted closer to a central location of the reed. This is shown in Ahn (Figure 4), which teaches the retainer (54) more centrally located along a length of the reed. Given the teachings of Ahn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bredel by shifting the retainer and reed mounting opening to be centrally located along a length of the reed in order to accommodate the anti-rotation features added.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Monday, June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights