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 .
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,247,673. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
Regarding pending independent claim 1, this claim mirrors patented claim 1 with the exception that pending claim 1 broadens one of the patented limitations from “a snap ring engaging the external slot of the internal conduit” to “a connector engaging the internal conduit” (see the last 4 lines of claims 1). Because the patented snap ring is a type of connector, and because engaging the external slot of the internal conduit is a manner of engaging the internal conduit, the pending limitation is seen as “anticipated” by the patented claim.
Regarding pending independent claim 6, this claim mirrors patented claim 6 with the exception that pending claim 6 broadens one of the patented limitations from “an adjustment collar threadably engaging the female flare adapter” to “an adjustment collar removably secured to the female flare adapter”. Because the patented threadable engagement is a type of removable securement, the pending limitation is seen as “anticipated” by the patented claim.
The difference between pending claim 9 and patented claim 9 is the same as the difference between pending claim 1 and patented claim 1, and the same analysis therefore applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowed if the double patenting rejection is overcome, without changing the scope of the claims.
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious a Schrader valve adapter and optimizer, including a female flare adapter, adjustment collar, internal conduit and hose adapter as claimed, particularly including the internal conduit having a first end having a core depressor socket within the female flare adapter and the second end and external slot extending beyond the second end of the adjustment collar second end (claim 1), or a female flare adapter interposed between a core depressor socket and the hose adapter surrounding the internal conduit (claim 6), or the steps of holding the female flare adapter and rotating the adjustment collar counterclockwise until it stops, and securing the female flare adapter to the HVAC flare fitting to create a seal between the female flare adapter and the HVAC flare fitting (claim 10).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,384,498 is considered the closest prior art and discloses an internal conduit (76, 150) having a core depressor socket (104) at a first end, an adjustment nut (80) which threadably engages directly onto a tire stem (60) having a Schrader valve therein, a connector (90) which connects the internal conduit to the adjustment collar, and an apparent second Schrader valve (described simply as the “valve” 166 of FIG 7) located in the internal conduit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
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, or 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
2/3/26