DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are currently withdrawn due to the restriction requirement, including in view of the Response filed 30 July 2026 as discussed below.
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
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (invention II, claims 17-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 30 July 2026.
The applicant argues on pgs. 5-6 of the Response that the method claims of claims 17-20 have been amended to include similar limitations to the apparatus claims of claims 1-16 by reciting “the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter.” However, the two inventions of claims 1-16 and 17-20 can be shown to be distinct because either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP 806.05(h). In the instant case, the apparatus(es) claimed in claims 1-16 can be used in a different process from the method claimed in claims 17-20, such as the visual apparatus may not necessarily being fitted onto the valve because the only recitation regarding fitting/positioning the apparatus on the valve recites that “the second portion of the cylindrical body is unable to be positioned on the valve of the container when the valve is open,” or the method claims 17-20 could be used with a different apparatus, such as an apparatus in which the second portion is able to be positioned/fitted onto the valve when the valve is open.
Information Disclosure Statement
IN 201203568 and IN 201406328, cited in the IDS filed 9/18/2025, were not considered because copies of the references were not provided.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 10, line 1, “In combination, a container and a visual apparatus” should be changed to --A combination of a container and a visual apparatus--.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 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 claims 1-16, it is unclear how the “cylindrical body” has two different outer diameters, as dictated by the recitation of “the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter.” As understood, and more broadly, the body is annular with two different outer diameters.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 13, and 15-16 (as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schrader (US 580,006).
Regarding claim 1, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 a visual apparatus for indicting if a valve (a tire valve) of a container (a tire) is open or closed (at least because the valve cap disclosed is selectively threaded onto the threaded conduit for a tire valve, which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being a biased closed, so if the cap is applied to the conduit/valve, then such a condition indicates that the valve is closed), comprising: a cylindrical body (in the same manner as the applicant’s cylindrical body 32, which isn’t exactly cylindrical because it has two outer diameters of different sizes) having a first portion (comprising cylindrical portion (m), and alternatively including the ring (K) over the cylindrical portion (m)) having a first outer diameter and a second portion (comprising knurled portion (D), and alternatively including the disk (J) over the face of the knurled portion (D)) extending from the first portion and having a second outer diameter; wherein the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter; and wherein the second portion (D) of the cylindrical body is unable to be positioned on the valve of the container when the valve is open (because the second portion (D) is never able to be positioned directly on the valve/conduit of the valve, albeit the second portion (D) is positioned indirectly on the valve/conduit of the valve when the first portion (m) is positioned directly on the valve/conduit of the valve, like the applicant’s device).
Regarding claim 4, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the first portion (m, K) comprises a first color (inherently), and at least a face (J) of the second portion (D, J) comprises a second color (pg. 2, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 5, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the face (J) and an outer portion of the second portion (wherein the “outer portion of the second portion” is interpreted as broad portion of the second portion that includes the “face” of the second portion) comprise the second color (pg. 2, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 7, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the first and second portions (m, D) of the cylindrical body comprise a common inner diameter (because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inner diameter of the second portion (D), in which the seal (H) is inserted, is equal to the inner diameter of the first portion (m) formed at the troughs of the threads).
Regarding claim 8, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the first and second portions (m, D) are coaxial.
Regarding claim 10, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 in combination, a container (a tire) and a visual apparatus (a valve cap), the combination comprising: the container comprising a body for holding a liquid (wherein the intended fluid to be handled isn’t seen as defining over the prior art structure per MPEP 2115) and a drain valve (a tire valve) that is used to drain liquid from the container (wherein the intended fluid to be handled isn’t seen as defining over the prior art structure per MPEP 2115), the valve comprising an arm (comprising the inherent valve stem actuated by a tool, such as a to deflate the tire, or a pump to inflate the tire) to open and close the valve; and the visual apparatus comprising a cylindrical body (in the same manner as the applicant’s cylindrical body 32, which isn’t exactly cylindrical because it has two outer diameters of different sizes) having a first portion (comprising cylindrical portion (m), and alternatively including the ring (K) over the cylindrical portion (m)) having a first outer diameter and a second portion (comprising knurled portion (D), and alternatively including the disk (J) over the face of the knurled portion (D)) extending from the first portion and having a second outer diameter; wherein the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter; and wherein the second portion (D) of the cylindrical body is unable to be positioned on the valve of the container when the valve is open (because the second portion (D) is never able to be positioned directly on the valve/conduit of the valve, albeit the second portion (D) is positioned indirectly on the valve/conduit of the valve when the first portion (m) is positioned directly on the valve/conduit of the valve, like the applicant’s device).
Regarding claim 13, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the first portion (m, K) of the visual apparatus comprises a first color (inherently), and at least a face (J) of the second portion (D, J) of the visual apparatus comprises a second color (pg. 2, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 15, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the first and second portions (m, D) of the cylindrical body comprise a common inner diameter (because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inner diameter of the second portion (D), in which the seal (H) is inserted, is equal to the inner diameter of the first portion (m) formed at the troughs of the threads).
Regarding claim 16, Schrader discloses in Figs. 1-8 that the first and second portions (m, D) are coaxial.
Claims 1-3 and 10-12 (alternatively: 1 and 10; as understood: all) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipted by Willey (US 2011/0114644).
Regarding claim 1, Willey discloses in Fig. 26 a visual apparatus for indicting if a valve (comprising valve core/arm 402) of a container 318 is open or closed (at least because the valve cap disclosed is selectively pushed onto the conduit for a valve for the container, which is biased closed, so if the cap is pushed far enough onto the conduit/valve, then such a condition indicates that the valve is open), comprising: a cylindrical body 400 (in the same manner as the applicant’s cylindrical body 32, which isn’t exactly cylindrical because it has two outer diameters of different sizes) having a first portion (comprising the narrow portion with beads 408 on the interior) having a first outer diameter and a second portion 407 (alternatively including dome 406) extending from the first portion and having a second outer diameter; wherein the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter; and wherein the second portion 407 of the cylindrical body 400 is unable to be positioned on the valve of the container 318 when the valve is open (because the second portion 407 is never able to be positioned on the valve/conduit of the valve).
Regarding claim 2, Willey discloses in Fig. 26 that the first portion faces outward from the container 318 when the valve of the container is closed (because the cylindrical body 400 could be rested on the outside of the container 318 with the dome 406 resting on the container 318, such as with the dome 406 resting on the neck 316 in the opening 314 on the top of the container 318, and the first portion extending away from the neck 316, which would mean the valve core 402 isn’t pushed opened by the shaft 410 on the cylindrical body 400, and so the valve is biased closed).
Regarding claim 3, Willey discloses in Fig. 26 that the second portion 407 faces outward from the container when the valve of the container is open (because the cylindrical body 400 needs to be attached to the valve/conduit of the valve to open the valve via the shaft 410 on the cylindrical body 400, as shown in Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 10, Willey discloses in Fig. 26 in combination, a container 318 and a visual apparatus 400, the combination comprising: the container 318 comprising a body for holding a liquid (wherein the intended fluid to be handled isn’t seen as defining over the prior art structure per MPEP 2115) and a drain valve (comprising valve core/arm 402) that is used to drain liquid from the container 318 (wherein the intended fluid to be handled isn’t seen as defining over the prior art structure per MPEP 2115), the valve comprising an arm 402 to open and close the valve; and the visual apparatus 400 comprising a cylindrical body 400 (in the same manner as the applicant’s cylindrical body 32, which isn’t exactly cylindrical because it has two outer diameters of different sizes) having a first portion (comprising the narrow portion with beads 408 on the interior) having a first outer diameter and a second portion 407 (alternatively including dome 406) extending from the first portion and having a second outer diameter; wherein the first outer diameter is less than the second outer diameter; and wherein the second portion 407 of the cylindrical body 400 is unable to be positioned on the valve of the container 318 when the valve is open (because the second portion 407 is never able to be positioned on the valve/conduit of the valve).
Regarding claim 11, Willey discloses in Fig. 26 that the first portion of the visual apparatus 400 faces outward from the container 318 when the valve of the container 318 is closed (because the cylindrical body 400 could be rested on the outside of the container 318 with the dome 406 resting on the container 318, such as with the dome 406 resting on the neck 316 in the opening 314 on the top of the container 318, and the first portion extending away from the neck 316, which would mean the valve core 402 isn’t pushed opened by the shaft 410 on the cylindrical body 400, and so the valve is biased closed).
Regarding claim 12, Willey discloses in Fig. 26 that the second portion 407 of the visual apparatus 400 faces outward from the container 318 when the valve of the container 318 is open (because the cylindrical body 400 needs to be attached to the valve/conduit of the valve to open the valve via the shaft 410 on the cylindrical body 400, as shown in Fig. 26).
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 (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.
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.
Claims 6 and 14 (as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of Clark (US 4,349,048).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Schrader discloses a second color for the second portion of the cylindrical body, as previously discussed, but is silent to the specific color of the second color, including that the second color comprises red.
Clark teaches in Figs. 1-3 a cap 10 comprising a cylindrical body 30, similar to the cylindrical body of the apparatus disclosed by Schrader, wherein the cylindrical body 30 comprises red (col. 5, lines 14-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second color disclosed by Schrader comprise red for visibility, as Clark teaches (col. 5, lines 14-15), and because Schrader is silent with regard to such specific details.
Claims 7 and 15 (alternatively: both; as understood: both) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of Saporito (US 3,797,286).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, alternatively to the configuration disclosed by Schrader, Saporito teaches in Figs. 1-3 that the first and second portions of the cylindrical body 17 comprise a common inner diameter (because the threaded bore extends through the narrow portion of the cylindrical body 17 and the wide, flanged portion of the cylindrical body 17 that make up the first and second portions, respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the threaded bore in the first portion disclosed by Schrader to extend into the second portion, such that the first and second portions comprise a common inner diameter (comprising the interior diameter at the peaks of the threads or the diameter at the troughs of the threads), as Saporito teaches, as a simple way of forming the bore, where a single process of drilling the threads needs to be performed.
Claim 9 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of Schlesinger et al. (US 2013/0186485).
Regarding claim 9, Schrader discloses a cylindrical body comprising a rigid material, but is silent with regard to the specifical material that the cylindrical body is made of, including whether it comprises rigid polymer.
Schlesinger teaches in Figs. 1-2 a tire valve cap 10, similar to the apparatus disclosed by Schrader, wherein the cap is made of rigid polymer (paragraph 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cylinder body disclosed by Schrader comprise rigid polymer for strength and durability, as Schlesinger teaches (paragraph 56), and because Schrader is silent with regard to such specific details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Jonathan Waddy, whose telephone number is 571-270-3146. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:00AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881 or Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/J. W./
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights