CTNF 19/101,864 CTNF 93445 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-02 Applicant’s election of Group II in the reply filed on 05/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the dashes (“-“) in lines 5-7 should be removed for ease of reading the claims . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is o bjected to because of the following informalities: t he phrase “the plastic” in line 2 should be written as –the plastic component— for consistency in claim language . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 3 is o bjected to because of the following informalities: t he phrase “the plastic” in line 2 should be written as –the plastic component— for consistency in claim language . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-34-01 Claims 1-7 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 claim 1, the phrase “the region” in line 12 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claims 2-7 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1. Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the plastic at least of the cylinder main body” is unclear as no other plastic was previously disclosed. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the plastic component of the cylinder main body. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, the phrase “preferably having a glass fiber content of from 40% to 60% and more preferably of from 45% to 50%, and is preferably a polyamide” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes it is not a required limitation. Regarding claim 2, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation from 40% to 60%, and the claim also recites 45% to 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Regarding claim 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, the phrase “preferably extends with partial regions as far as through the outer surfaces of the plastic of the cylinder main body” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes it is not a required limitation. Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the air outlet valve is a check valve, in particular a reed valve” is unclear as claim 1 already recites “the air outlet valve is a reed valve” and thereby claim 4 broadens rather than narrows the limitations by going from a narrow reed valve embodiment to a broader check valve embodiment. 07-34-08 Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, the phrase “preferably exclusively” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes it is not a required limitation. Regarding claim 6, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, the phrase “in particular a variable dead space volume dependent on the pressure in the pump chamber” is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes it is not a required limitation. Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Accordingly, the phrases “preferably of at least 8 bar, further preferably of at least 9 bar and most preferably of at least 10 bar” and “preferably of at least 170°C, further preferably of at least 190°C, further preferably of at least 220°C and most preferably of at least 250°C” are unclear. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes it is not a required limitation. Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation at least 7 bar, and the claim also recites at least 8 bar and at least 9 bar and at least 10 bar which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim also recites the broad recitation at least 150°C, and the claim also recites at least 170°C and at least 190°C and at least 220°C and at least 250°C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already recites the air outlet valve is a reed valve, and thereby claim 4 broadens the scope to require the air outlet valve is a check valve, and in particular a reed valve, which is exemplary language and is already disclosed in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1, and instead broadens it . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stehle (US 20080060734), Kuang (US 20200158099) (of record), and Tsiberidis (JP 2020511348, see machine translation) . Regarding claims 1 and 4, Stehle discloses a roadside puncture repair kit comprising a compressor system (Fig. 1: 16) and a sealant device (Fig. 1: R 1 ), the sealant device having a sealant (Fig. 1: 2) for sealing a vehicle tire, the compressor system (Fig. 1: 16) connectable (Fig. 1: 14) to the sealant device (Fig. 1: R 1 ) ([0031], [0034]). However, Stehle recites a generic compressor (Fig. 1: 16) and does not expressly recite its specific structure. In particular Stehle does not expressly recite the compressor comprises a motor, a piston which is driven by the motor via a crank mechanism, and a single-part cylinder main body having a pump chamber, in which the piston is mounted movably from a bottom dead center to a top dead center in order to compress air, and a receiving chamber for receiving the compressed air compressed in the pump chamber through an air outlet valve, wherein the cylinder main body is a plastic component, wherein the cylinder main body has a metal insert in a region of the air outlet valve. Kuang discloses a roadside puncture repair kit comprising a compressor system ([0003]-[0006]), the compressor system comprising a motor (Fig. 1: 31) ([0027]), a piston (Fig. 1: 111) which is driven by the motor (Fig. 1: 31) via a crank mechanism (Fig. 1) ([0027], [0030]), and a single-part cylinder main body (Fig. 1: 10) having a pump chamber (Fig. 1: see chamber within 10 where piston 111 sits and moves) ([0027]), in which the piston is mounted movably from a bottom dead center to a top dead center in order to compress air (Fig. 1) ([0027], [0030]-[0031]), and a receiving chamber (Fig. 1: see chamber vertically above chamber in 10 and on other side of insert 40) for receiving the compressed air compressed in the pump chamber through an air outlet valve (Fig. 1: see valve region where insert 40 sits), wherein the cylinder main body is a plastic component ([0027]), wherein the cylinder main body has a metal insert (Fig. 1: 40) in a region of the air outlet valve ([0027]). In this manner, it is possible to have a compressor that is capable of reducing product weight, simplifying production and installation processes, saving materials and labor costs, and reducing self weight of a vehicle ([0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the generic compressor of Stehle with one generally known in the tire compressor art for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Kuang. However, modified Stehle does not expressly recite the air outlet valve is a reed valve/check valve. Tsiberidis discloses a compressor (Fig. 9: 18) for supplying a pressure medium to a tire cavity ([0001]), wherein an air outlet valve is a check valve, and advantageously is a reed valve (Fig. 9: 64) ([0051], [0068], [0102]). This allows for particularly efficient switching between suction and discharge, that is, between the suction and discharge processes ([0068]). Reed valves that open in different directions, in a particularly simple manner, allow for the discharge during the inward and outward movement of the compressor component, or enable it to function as a double piston ([0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify the compressor system of modified Stehle in order to provide a reed valve as the air outlet valve in the air outlet region between the pump chamber and the receiving chamber that receives compressed air from the pump chamber so as to efficiently switch between suction and discharge processes in a simple manner that allows for discharge during the inward and outward movement of the compressor component, or even enables it to function as a double piston, as is known in the tire compressor system art, as taught by Tsiberidis. Regarding claim 2, Kuang further discloses the plastic component of the cylinder main body (Fig. 1: 10) is a glass fiber-reinforced plastic ([0028]). Additionally, Kuang also discloses the plastic component is nylon (i.e., polyamide) ([0028]), and may have a glass fiber content of 25% to 35% ([0028]), which approaches the range of from 40% to 60%. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect 35% glass fiber content to behave in substantially the same way as 40%. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the percentage of glass fiber content in the plastic component of the cylinder main body. Regarding claim 3, Kuang further discloses the metal insert (Fig. 1: 40) is enclosed in a positively locking manner by the plastic of the cylinder main body (Fig. 1: 10) ([0027]). Kuang additionally discloses the metal insert (Fig. 1: 40) extends with partial regions as far as through the outer surfaces of the plastic of the cylinder main body (Fig. 1: see how insert is embedded in 10). Regarding claim 6, Kuang further discloses the pump chamber forms a dead space volume (Fig. 1: see how chamber in 10 tapers at top near insert 40, and thereby piston 111 cannot reach the very top after a stroke, and the space between the piston 111 and the top of the chamber by 40 is the dead space volume). The limitation “in order to limit a maximum pressure in the pump chamber” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the kit that differentiates it from the kit disclosed by modified Stehle. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because modified Stehle discloses the pump chamber forms a dead space volume, which is capable of limiting a maximum pressure in the pump chamber. Regarding claim 7, Kuang further discloses the cylinder main body is suitable to withstand high pressures and temperatures ([0028], [0034]). Kuang also discloses that air pumps need to bear and be resistant to certain high temperatures and pressures ([0005]). Accordingly, Kuang recognizes the cylinder main body pressure and temperature resistance as design considerations that affect compressor durability and functionality. While Kuang does not explicitly disclose the value for the maximum pressure or temperature in the cylinder main body, it is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for said pressure and temperature. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the pressure and temperature in the cylinder main body in order to withstand pressures and temperatures encountered in the intended compressor operating environment through routine engineering experimentation. Additionally, case law holds that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. MPEP 2112.01. In this case, modified Stehle discloses the claimed structure and materials for the cylinder main body, as well as disclosing high temperatures and pressures must be achieved within the cylinder main body, as discussed above. Thereby, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized, or at least found obvious, that the cylinder main body is suitable to provide a maximum pressure as claimed, wherein there are temperatures in regions of the cylinder main body as claimed . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stehle (US 20080060734), Kuang (US 20200158099) (of record), and Tsiberidis (JP 2020511348, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ellinger et al . (DE 102004018726, see machine translation) . Regarding claim 5, Kuang further discloses the crank mechanism comprises gearwheels (Fig. 1: 32, 33) ([0030]). While Kuang discloses a preferred embodiment wherein the gears are plastic, this is merely a preferable example and does not explicitly limit the disclosure to such a limitation. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. It is also well settled that an applied reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art, including not only preferred embodiments, but less preferred and even non-preferred. See MPEP 2123. Ellinger discloses a tire inflation compressor ([0001], wherein the compressor comprises a crank system connected to drive gear (i.e., gearwheels) (Figs. 4, 6, 12) ([0050]), and wherein the gearwheels are made of plastic and have a metallic reinforcing element in the area of the opening (i.e., the gearwheels consist of metal at least in partial regions), such as an iron core (Fig. 12: 104) ([0023], [0050]). This is a particularly cost-effective yet robust gearwheel ([0023]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to further modify Stehle in order to provide the gearwheels consist of metal at least in partial regions as is known in the substantially similar art for the advantages discussed above, as taught by Ellinger. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST. 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, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031. 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. /SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 6 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 7 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 8 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 19/101,864 Page 9 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights