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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue et al. (WO 2017/089156 A1, citations taken from English translation attached) in view of Sutton et al. (US 2019/0083688 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Geue discloses a motor-driven medical suction pump with a pump unit (Fig. 1 and 2, the term “medical” in the preamble is considered functional and the pump of Geue is capable of being used in a medical setting) for generating a negative pressure with a housing (10) which accommodates the pump unit therein ([0023]), wherein the pump unit (100) comprises a vacuum opening (possibly the side port shown in Fig. 2 that extends to the right of the pump 100. However because it is not explicitly labeled or described the secondary reference Sutton is being used to teach the limitation below) for the negative pressure to be generated by the pump unit and at least one further opening (11) which communicates with the vacuum opening through the pump unit (shown in Fig. 2) and which is connected to a sound damping chamber (15) comprising a sinqle outlet opening (17), wherein the sound damping chamber is tightly connected to and encloses the further opening (housing 12 of the damping chamber encloses the further opening 11 and is tightly connected to the pump 100, [0024]), the further opening being provided opposite the outlet opening (as shown in Fig. 2) and having a larger flow cross-section than the outlet opening (Fig. 2 appears to show that the further opening 11 being of a larger cross-section than the outlet opening 17. However, even if not, it would be prima facie obvious to optimize the size of the openings as doing so does not change the overall function of the device and no significance has been recited for the specific size configuration).
However, Geue does not explicitly disclose the vacuum opening.
Sutton teaches a similar vacuum pump (Fig. 3, element 10) with a sound damping chamber (34) connected at one end. Sutton further teaches the vacuum pump having a vacuum opening (16) for the negative pressure to be generated by the pump unit ([0020]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geue with a vacuum opening as taught by Sutton for the purpose of creating a vacuum tubing that can be connected with a medical device for creating a vacuum pump ([0020]).
With regard to claim 2, Geue discloses the further opening (11) being an air release opening of the pump unit ([0024], [0025]).
With regard to claim 5 and 16, Geue discloses a sound damping chamber (15) with a volume. While Geue does not explicitly disclose a specific volume for the chamber it would be prima facie obvious to optimize the size of the chamber to be 6ml and not more than 30mL as doing so would not alter the overall function of the device.
With regard to claim 6, Geue discloses a sound damping housing (12) surrounding the sound damping chamber being rigid ([0024] housing 12 is designed to retain its shape and therefore considered rigid and for holding the rubber-elastic material 14).
With regard to claim 7, Geue discloses the sound damping chamber (15) being formed by a hose piece (12 is considered a hose piece because a hose is generally a cylindrical shaped element).
With regard to claim 8, Geue discloses the sound damping chamber (15) being fastened to the pump unit (as shown in Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 10, Geue discloses a sound damping housing (12) surrounding the sound damping chamber (15) including a fastening flange (see annotated fig below) which bears tightly against at least two surface sections of the pump unit which extend substantially at right angles to each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Geue discloses a sound damping housing (12) surrounding the sound damping chamber (15) being of a cylindrical design (see Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 12, Geue discloses a sound damping housing (12) surrounding the sound damping chamber (15) being made open on one side (side that attaches to pump housing 100) and being closed by the pump unit (as shown in Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 13, Geue discloses a sound damping housing (12) surrounding the sound damping chamber (15) completely surrounding the sound damping chamber and being open outwards only via the further opening (11) and the outlet opening (17).
With regard to claim 15, Geue discloses the pump unit (100) being formed by an elongate body (see Fig. 1 and 2) comprising the sound damping chamber (15) at its one end (Fig. 2) and a motor of the pump unit at its other end ([0023]).
However, Geue does not disclose an energy store.
Sutton teaches an elongate energy store (30) extending substantially parallel to the pump unit (12, Fig. 1) is mounted together with the pump unit (shown in Fig. 1) on a pump unit carrier (28) which carries a ventilation valve (26) upstream of the energy store and adjusting a ventilation opening (via 110 controller 14).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geue with the energy store and carrier as taught by Sutton for the purpose of powering the vacuum pump ([0021]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue et al. (WO 2017/089156 A1, citations taken from English translation attached) in view of Sutton et al. (US 2019/0083688 A1) and in further view of Marburg (DE 10 2013 104 375 A1, citations taken from the attached English translation).
With regard to claim 9, Geue/Sutton teach the sound damping housing (12, Geue) surrounding the sound damping chamber (15, Geue).
However, Geue/Sutton do not explicitly teach locking the housing to the pump unit.
Marburg teaches a similar vacuum pump system (Fig. 1) with a sound damping housing (9) attached to one end of the pump unit (5). Marburg further teaches locking the sound damping housing to the pump unit (via screws [0021]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geue/Sutton with the locking of the sound damping housing to the pump unit as taught by Marburg for the purpose of providing a secure attachment for the sound damping chamber ([0021]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue et al. (WO 2017/089156 A1, citations taken from English translation attached) in view of Sutton et al. (US 2019/0083688 A1) and in further view of Huser et al. (US 2013/0045126 A1).
With regard to claim 14, Geue discloses the claimed invention except for a energy store and vacuum hose.
Sutton teaches the pump unit (12) with an energy store (30) and a vacuum hose (16) branching laterally from the pump unit, which vacuum hose connects the vacuum opening to a through-opening (18) and to which a controllably adjustable ventilation opening is connected (via controller 14).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geue with the energy store and vacuum hose as taught by Sutton for the purpose of powering the vacuum pump ([0021]).
However, Geue/Sutton do not teach a pump unit carrier.
Huser teaches a vacuum pump system that further teaches the pump unit being mounted on a pump unit carrier which forms a receptacle for an energy store ([0023], housing attached to mounting plate is considered the carrier).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geue/Sutton with the carrier as taught by Huser for the purpose of storing the pump unit ([0023]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geue et al. (WO 2017/089156 A1, citations taken from English translation attached) in view of Sutton et al. (US 2019/0083688 A1) and in further view of Britto et al. (US 2005/0245860 A1).
With regard to claim 17, Geue/Sutton teach the claimed invention except for the material ABS.
Britto teaches a similar pumping device (Fig. 7) where the materials used can include ABS ([0039]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Geue/Sutton with the material ABS as taught by Britto because the substation of one material for another for use in a similar capacity is well-known in the art and would not affect the overall function of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN P FARRAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/Lauren P Farrar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783