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
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I, claims 2-12 in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/7/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/7/2025 and 8/8/2025 were filed prior to the mailing date of the mailing of this action. The submissions comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the visual indicator is “externally visible” from a right side view and left side view, and a plurality of valves, and or more control knobs (claim 1), and, the visual alert indicator is disposed on or in the at least one of the one or more control knobs (claim 4), the visual alert indicator is disposed on the handle (claim 5), reflective material (claim 7) , and the visual alert indicator is disposed on the protective collar (claim 10), and a first port configured to expose an angled, luminescent analog pressure gauge (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitations in claim 4, “the visual alert indicator is disposed on or in the at least one of the one or more control knobs”, and, in claim 5, the visual alert indicator is disposed on the handle, and in claim 8, “the one or more control knobs are formed with translucent materials to disperse light”, and in claim 12, “a first port configured to expose an angled, luminescent analog pressure gauge” lack support in the originally filed specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations,
in claim 1, “it” should be changed to - -indicator - -,
in claim 7, line 3, “surfaces the” should be changed to - -surfaces on the - -,
in claim 11, “receive expose” should be changed to - - expose - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " a visual alert indicator disposed in operative association with the valve integrated pressure regulator device and the protective shroud such that it is externally visible from a front view, a back view, a right-side view, a left-side view and a top of the valve integrated pressure regulator assembly", which is unclear as to how the indicator 80 is externally visible from a right-side view, and, a left-side view . As shown below in applicant’s figure 1, the indicator 80 is only visible from a right side or left side view, when this view also includes a top perspective viewpoint (indicated with the angled lines). The shroud 50 blocks the left and right viewpoint at walls 51.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 recites, “the visual alert indicator is disposed on the protective collar”, which is unclear, since as shown above the indicator 80 is not on the collar 44.
Claim 12 recites, “a recessed portion” which is unclear if this is the same recessed portion in claim 9, or an additional recessed portion?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jacobsen et al. (EP 4180708A1). The claims are being rejected as best understood based on the 112 rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Jacobsen et al. disclose a valve integrated pressure regulator assembly 100 comprising: a valve integrated pressure regulator device comprising a body (the inherent body of the integrated valve, para.0009); a gas inlet (port 130); a gas outlet (inherently an outlet is included with the device to flow the gas to the end user); a plurality of valves ( para 0008 shutoff valve, para.0009 integrated valve): a pressure regulator (140, para.0009,0015); one or more control knobs (110); and a pressure gauge or an electronic display (the display of 120, para.0004);
a protective shroud (as shown in Fig. 1, the shroud including the handle, un-numbered and the cover 115, also having the ) configured for covering or enveloping the valve integrated pressure regulator device, the protective shroud further having a plurality of openings (the opening for 130 cover for the port and for the knob 140) and to expose the gas outlet; the one or more control knobs; and the pressure gauge or the electronic display; and a visual alert indicator (120, para.0015,0004) disposed in operative association with the valve integrated pressure regulator device and the protective shroud such that “it” is externally visible from a front view, a back view, a right-side view, a left-side view and a top of the valve integrated pressure regulator assembly (see Fig. 1 and para. 0021, “clearly indicating the valve opening status at a location easily visible for a user at all times”, in as much as applicant’s device is visible in all views).
PNG
media_image2.png
836
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen et al. disclose the protective shroud further comprises a top section defining a handle (un-numbered protruding u-shaped handle to left of 140 as shown in Fig. 1) and an exposed top surface (the surface of the shroud that the upper 120 is located on), the top section further having a central opening configured to expose at least one of the one (the opening of the shroud surrounding 140 knob of the regulator) or more control knobs.
Regarding claim 6, Jacobsen et al. disclose the visual alert indicator is disposed on the exposed top surface (as shown in Fig 1, the upper top indicator 120 is located as claimed).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobsen et al. disclose, as best understood, the protective shroud further comprises: a main body section having a front face with a recessed portion (the recessed portion is considered to be the section of the shroud that is opened once the cover at 130 is pivoted back to expose the connector port 130, see para.0015) and a curved back face; and a bottom section with a protective collar (as shown below in the amended figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
885
1511
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Jacobsen et al. disclose the visual alert indicator (120) is disposed on the protective collar (as best understood and shown above).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobsen et al. disclose the front face with a recessed portion further comprises a first port (the opening of the shroud once the cover at 130 is open is considered as the first port, para.0015 discloses there is a connector port at 130, as best understood by the drawing above a hinge appears to be at the bottom of the cover 130, this permits the cover to expose the connector port 130, the opening of the shroud once the cover is open is considered as the first port ) configured to receive expose an angled electronic display.
Regarding claim 12, Jacobsen et al. disclose the front face with a recessed portion (the opening within the shroud once the cover is opened to expose the port 130) further comprises a first port (port 130 para. 0015) configured to expose an angled, luminescent analog pressure gauge (there is an opening, therefore it is “configured” to expose an angled, luminescent analog pressure gauge).
When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP 2125.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. ‘708 in view of Brown et al. (US 9546742).
Regarding claim 3 Jacobsen et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that “the visual alert indicator is a collar disposed around the at least one of the one or more control knobs”.
Brown et al. teach the use of the visual alert indicator is a collar (600, col.6, lns. 10-50) disposed around the at least one of the one or more control knobs (210,216, see Fig. 2,7A,7B).
PNG
media_image4.png
763
1058
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a collar and knob as taught by Brown et al. for the knob of Jacobsen et al. to have the visual alert indicator is a collar disposed around the at least one of the one or more control knobs, in order to be able to have a valve indicator that better communicates the position of the valve through the display (Brown et al., col. 1, lns. 26-30).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. ‘708.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jacobsen et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that the visual alert indicator is disposed on or in the at least one of the one or more control knobs, and the visual alert indicator is disposed on the handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jacobsen et al. to having the visual alert indicator is disposed on or in the at least one of the one or more control knobs, or the visual alert indicator being disposed on the handle, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. 708 in view of Kuwa et al. (US 10939705).
Regarding claim 7 Jacobsen et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that “one or more surfaces the top section of the protective shroud are formed or coated with reflective material”.
Kuwa et al. teach the use of a reflective material on a shell (col.12, lns. 35-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a reflective material as taught by Kuwa et al. onto the device of Jacobsen et al. to have one or more surfaces the top section of the protective shroud are formed or coated with reflective material, in order to be able to protect the device or contents therein from UV radiation (Kuwa et al., col. 4, lns. 17-20).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. 708 in view of Olthius (US 2737573).
Regarding claim 8 Jacobsen et al. disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, although is silent that the at least one of the one or more control knobs are formed with translucent materials to disperse light.
Olthius teaches the use of a knob having a translucent material (col.3, lns. 47-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a translucent material as taught by Olthius for the material in the knob of Jacobsen et al. to have at least one of the one or more control knobs are formed with translucent materials to disperse light, in order to be able to determine the angular position of the shaft at a glance (Olthius, col. 3, lns. 62-64), and, since it has been held, that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component (one material for another) or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig Price, whose telephone number is (571)272-2712 or via facsimile (571)273-2712. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8:00AM-4:30PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at Form at;
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/CRAIG J PRICE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
