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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/26/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Morton (US 3208133).
Morton discloses:
15. A valve core tool (10) for aligning with and rotating a Schrader valve core (26), the valve core tool comprising: a driver rod (51) having a distal end (at 24); and a fork (24, see fig. 7) disposed on the distal end of the driver rod, the fork defining a recess (24c) to receive a connecting tip (54, 56) of the Schrader valve core, wherein the fork includes at least one physical stop (24B) disposed adjacent to the recess and configured to guide the connecting tip into a proper rotational alignment (col. 4, ll. 30-36 states “When the pin comes toward the surfaces 24A and 24B, it is guided by whichever one of these surfaces the pin 54 hits toward the central slot between the surface 24A and the surface 24B. Once the pin 54 is in the area of that slot, the shoulder 55 will he deflected by the sloping surface 20A to center the core 26 and permit the pin 54 to enter the opening 24C.”).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukuda (US 6152165).
Fukuda discloses:
1. A Schrader valve core tool (20) comprising: a driver rod (22) extending from a handle (23) at a first end thereof; and a tip (21) at a second end of the driver rod, the second end opposite the first end (as seen in figs. 4a, 4b), wherein: the tip comprises a fork (31, 32) configured to connect with a Schrader valve core connecting tip (14, 16) for removal or installation through a rotational motion of a threaded (12a) valve core (12), and the fork comprises a stepdown (32, fig. 5a) having at least one stop (flat surface of 32 that would face 16 of valve core 12) thereby providing alignment of the Schrader valve core tool and the threaded valve core (alignment seen in figs. 10a, 10b and 14a, 14b).
3. The Schrader valve core tool of claim 1, wherein the stepdown comprises at least one tiered step leading to the at least one stop at a point of proper alignment of the Schrader valve core tool and the threaded valve core (as seen in fig. 5a, the flat surface of 32 that would face 16 of valve core 12 is a step down from the top end surface of 31).
5. A valve core tool (20), comprising: a driver rod (22) having a handle (23) at a first end and a forked tip (21) at a second end (as seen in figs. 4a, 4b).
6. The valve core tool of claim 5, wherein the stop comprises a vertical face (vertical flat face of 32) configured to engage a flat surface (of 16) of a connecting tip of the valve core (as seen in figs. 10a, 10b, 14a, 14b).
9. The valve core tool of claim 8, wherein the forked tip comprises a symmetrical structure allowing engagement of the valve core from multiple rotational orientations (as seen in figs. 5a, 5b, and 6, the forked tip is symmetrical and can engage with the flat surfaces of 16 at the angles 0 and 180 of rotation).
10. The valve core tool of claim 9, wherein the stop includes an engagement surface for transmitting rotational force during counterclockwise motion (col. 7, ll. 39-43 states “Turning counterclockwise the tool grip portion 23 in this state will allow the valve core 12 with its head portion held in the slot 32 of the tool head portion 21 also to turn, thus permitting the valve core 12 to be unscrewed and detached from the valve tubular casing 11”).
11. The valve core tool of claim 10, wherein the recess depth is proportionally divided between the vertical surface and the stop for transmitting torque in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (col. 7, ll. 39-43 above described counterclockwise. Col. 7, ll. 55-56 states “turning clockwise the tool 20 with its grip portion will allow the valve core 12 to be screwed with the tubular casing 11 within it”).
12. The valve core tool of claim 11, wherein the stop is configured to make contact with the connecting tip of the valve core after less than 180 degrees of rotation when forward axial pressure is applied (the flat face of 32 can contact 16 with little more than 0 degrees of rotation when pressure is applied and as soon as 16 is inserted within 32).
14. The valve core tool of claim 5, wherein the forked tip and the driver rod are integrally formed as a single component (as seen in figs. 4a, 4b, 21 is an integral end of rod 22).
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 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 2, 4-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 6152165) in view of Morton (US 3208133).
Fukuda discloses the invention as essentially claimed, except for wherein the stepdown comprises an inclined surface configured to provide a smooth transition to the at least one stop at a point of proper alignment of the Schrader valve core tool and the threaded valve core; wherein the stepdown comprises an offset perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the Schrader valve core tool and formed at a tip of the inclined surface thereof; wherein the forked tip includes: an inclined surface extending from an outer perimeter thereof toward a recess; and a stop at an end of the inclined surface; and wherein the inclined surface includes an offset region between the stop and the inclined surface.
Morton teaches a related valve core tool, wherein the stepdown comprises an inclined surface (24a” or 24b”, see figs. 9, 10) configured to provide a smooth transition to the at least one stop (flat face of 24’, 24b’, 24a” or 24b” that faces 56, as seen in fig. 11) at a point of proper alignment of the Schrader valve core tool and the threaded valve core (as seen in fig. 11); wherein the stepdown comprises an offset (24a’ or 24b’) perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the Schrader valve core tool and formed at a tip of the inclined surface thereof (as seen in figs. 9, 10, 24a’ or 24b’ is at the top ed of the inclined surface); wherein the forked tip includes: an inclined surface (24a” or 24b”) extending from an outer perimeter thereof toward a recess (space between 24a and 24b and which leads to 24c, as seen in fig. 7); and wherein the inclined surface includes an offset region between the stop and the inclined surface (24a’ is between the flat surface forming the stop on the side of 24a’ and the incline 24a”), for the purpose of providing a tool which provides faster assembly of the valve core (col. 1, ll. 35-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Fukuda, wherein the stepdown comprises an inclined surface configured to provide a smooth transition to the at least one stop at a point of proper alignment of the Schrader valve core tool and the threaded valve core; wherein the stepdown comprises an offset perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the Schrader valve core tool and formed at a tip of the inclined surface thereof; wherein the forked tip includes: an inclined surface extending from an outer perimeter thereof toward a recess; and a stop at an end of the inclined surface; and wherein the inclined surface includes an offset region between the stop and the inclined surface, as taught by Morton, for the purpose of providing a tool which provides faster assembly of the valve core.
Morton does not disclose the specific angle of the inclined surface, and therefore does not disclose wherein the inclined surface has an angle of approximately 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the valve core tool. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the inclined surface to have an angle of approximately 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the valve core tool, since applicant has not disclosed that having the inclined surface at an angle of approximately 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the valve core tool solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the inclined surface has an angle of approximately 15 degrees relative to a longitudinal axis of the valve core tool, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 6152165) in view of Morton (US 3208133) further in view of Burkey et al. (US 5665908).
Fukuda discloses the invention as essentially claimed, except for further comprising an O-ring disposed around the forked tip for pressure sealing within a pressure capsule.
Burkey et al. teaches a related valve core tool with a forked tip which further comprises an O-ring (70, fig. 8, 9) disposed around the forked tip (smaller diameter portion at end of 22) for pressure sealing within a pressure capsule (tire), for the purpose of providing known sealing means which ensures fluid communication in the intended direction when the tool is engaged with the valve core, in a manner yielding predictable results.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Fukuda, such that an O-ring disposed around the forked tip for pressure sealing within a pressure capsule, as taught by Burkey et al., for the purpose of providing known sealing means which ensures fluid communication in the intended direction when the tool is engaged with the valve core, in a manner yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9630596 and US 3935713 disclose related forked end tools for installing or removing a valve core.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM CST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights