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 .
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22, 27-28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank).
As regarding claim 22, CN ‘575 discloses the claimed invention for a system ([0018], [0029], [0043], [0045]) for removing oxygen from a container ([0029] and figs. 4-5).
CN ‘575 does not disclose an air pump comprising an intake and a discharge, wherein the intake comprises a first connector, and the discharge is fluidically connected to an oxygen removal device. Kamei teaches an air pump (36, 37) comprising an intake and a discharge, wherein the intake comprises a first connector, and the discharge is fluidically connected to an oxygen removal device (41, 61 of fig. 3; [0026], [0144], [0148], [0155] and [0155]). Both CN ‘575 and Kamei are directed to oxygen concentration regulating device in refrigerator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide an air pump comprising an intake and a discharge, wherein the intake comprises a first connector, and the discharge is fluidically connected to an oxygen removal device as taught by Kamei in order to enhance refrigerator performance.
CN ‘575 as modified discloses a first flowpath having a first end connected to an inlet of the system and a second end connected to an inlet of a first air switch; a second flowpath having a first end connected to an outlet of the first air switch and a second end connected to the intake of the air pump (Kamei – 36, 37); a third flowpath having a first end connected to the discharge of the air pump (Kamei – 36, 37) and a second end connected to an inlet of the oxygen removal device (22); a fourth flowpath having a first end connected to an outlet of the oxygen removal device (22) and a second end connected to an outlet of the system (fig. 4; no number); a valve connected between the first and second end of the third flowpath or connected between the first and second end of the fourth flowpath (fig. 4; no number); and the oxygen removal device (22) comprising: an inlet of the oxygen removal device fluidically connected to the discharge of the air pump (Kamei – 36, 37), wherein the inlet comprises a first connector; an outlet of the oxygen removal device including a second connector; and an oxygen removal portion configured to remove oxygen from fluid passing from the inlet of the oxygen removal device to the outlet of the oxygen removal device.
CN ‘575 as modified does not disclose a one-way valve. Fairbank teaches a one-way valve ([0025]-[0026]). Both CN ‘575 and Fairbank are directed to a food conditioning system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a one-way valve as taught by Fairbank in order to enhance system performance.
As regarding claim 27, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the oxygen removal device further comprises: an oxygen release system (20 of fig. 4 and [0048]) comprising: a release path (exhaust port B of fig. 4) configured to permit fluid flow from the oxygen removal portion of the oxygen removal device out of the system ([0048]); and an energy source ([0044] – 300-370nm UV lamp 38) configured to impart energy on the oxygen removal portion of the oxygen removal device sufficient to cause the oxygen removal portion to release scavenged oxygen ([0044]).
As regarding claim 28, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention for wherein the energy source is ultraviolet light ([0048]).
As regarding claim 32, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention for the system is integral to a containerized storage device ([0043], 27 of fig. 4), wherein the containerized storage device comprises one or more containers (27).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Hermans et al (US 20190105595; hereinafter Hermans).
As regarding claim 23, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first connector and second connector each comprise snap disconnects that prevent fluid flow when disconnected. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the first connector and second connector each comprise snap disconnects that prevent fluid flow when disconnected in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Hermans ([0202]).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Carlson et al (US 20020012728; hereinafter Carlson).
As regarding claim 24, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for a low-pressure bleeder valve fluidically connected to the inlet of the air pump, wherein the low pressure bleeder valve is configured to introduce additional fluid into the system in response to a pressure in the system being below a predetermined threshold. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a low-pressure bleeder valve fluidically connected to the inlet of the air pump, wherein the low pressure bleeder valve is configured to introduce additional fluid into the system in response to a pressure in the system being below a predetermined threshold in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Carlson ([0030]).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Kamei et al (US 20180245835; hereinafter Kamei).
As regarding claim 25, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention for a first valve (20) connected between the first connector and the air pump; a second valve (35) connected between the second connector and the oxygen removal device (22).
CN ‘575 does not disclose a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure in the system and generate a sensed pressure signal; and a controller configured to open and close the first and second valves, and activate the air pump based on a pressure signal from the pressure sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure in the system and generate a sensed pressure signal; and a controller configured to open and close the first and second valves, and activate the air pump based on a pressure signal from the pressure sensor in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Kamei ([0003] and [0134]-[0135]).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Kamei et al (US 20180245835; hereinafter Kamei).
As regarding claim 26, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for an oxygen sensor configured to measure an oxygen concentration in the system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide an oxygen sensor configured to measure an oxygen concentration in the system in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Kamei ([0004], [0121]-[0122] and [0135]).
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Huston et al (US 5872721; hereinafter Huston).
As regarding claim 29, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the energy source is heat. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the energy source is heat in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Huston (claim 3).
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Mukai et al (US 6083459; hereinafter Mukai).
As regarding claim 30, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the energy source is electric field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the energy source is electric field in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Mukai (col 3 ln 5-18).
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101322575 (hereinafter CN ‘575) in view of Kamei et al (WO 2019065889; hereinafter Kamei; English equivalent US 20200253227) and Fairbank et al (US 20150307217; hereinafter Fairbank), as applied supra, and further in view of Met et al (US 20160058040; hereinafter Met).
As regarding claim 31, CN ‘575 as modified discloses all of limitations as set forth above. CN ‘575 as modified discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the energy source is vacuum. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to provide wherein the energy source is vacuum in order to enhance system performance, since it was known in the art as shown in Met ([0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark argues that CN ‘575, Kamei, and Fairbank (alone or in combination) fails to disclose, teach, or suggest ‘air switch.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
CN ‘575 discloses an air switch (20), described as a two-position, two-way electromagnetic valve capable of selectively directing airflow among ports A – C. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), such a structure plainly constitutes an “air switch,” as it selectively controls and redirects airflow between multiple flow paths. Positioning the air switch upstream of the oxygen removal device to protect the pump by ensuring appropriate airflow conditions prior the operation.
Additionally, Kamei discloses multiple switching valve capable of performing an air switching function, including bypass valve 50, which selectively switches between operational states ([0095], [0106], [0196]). A valve that selectively redirects airflow between alternative flow paths meets the ordinary and customary meaning of an “air switch.” The claim does not require any particular switching mechanism beyond selective control airflow.
To the extent Applicant contends that none of the cited references discloses an air switch specifically located upstream of the air pump, such positioning would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The relative placement of a valve and a pump within a fluid system is a predictable matter of design choice. Locating the air switch upstream of the air pump would have been an obvious configuration to protect the air pump, ensure appropriate inlet airflow conditions prior to operation, and promote stable pressure and flow characteristics within the system. Such an arrangement represents no more than the predictable use of known elements according to the established functions.
Moreover, Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence of criticality and unexpected results associate with positioning the air switch upstream of the air pump. In the absence of such evidence, rearranging and/or adding known components within a fluid circuit to achieve their known benefits would have well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the cited references teach, or at minimum render obvious, the claimed “air switch” limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached on (571) 272-0475. 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.
/DUNG H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773