DETAILED ACTION
Note: The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
1. Claims 1-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 13, 2023, June 25, 2024 and August 7, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 4-5 of claim 1 recite “…a reservoir coupled to one of a vacuum pump and a vacuum passageway…”; however, antecedent basis for the vacuum pump was already provided in line 3. Accordingly, lines 4-5 should read as ---…a reservoir coupled to one of [[the vacuum pump and a vacuum passageway…---
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.
5. Claims 19 and 20 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.
The term “approximately” in claims 19 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. With respect to claim 19, the claimed vacuum pump negative pressure range is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately.” With respect to claim 20, the claimed reservoir volume range is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “approximately.”
For the purpose of examination, the claimed vacuum pump negative pressure range of claim 19 will be interpreted as having a +/- 10 mmHg degree of error; and the claimed reservoir volume range of claim 20 will be interpreted as having a +/- 25 ml degree of error.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClure (US PGPUB 2011/0184427 A1).
Please refer to the following Annotated Figure 2 of McClure:
PNG
media_image1.png
446
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7. With regard to claim 1, McClure discloses a handheld portable oral aspirator device (oragienic personal assistant; Figs. 1, 2; abstract) comprising: a lower portion of a main unit (see Annotated Fig. 2, above), the lower portion comprising a battery (battery housing, A1; for storing two ‘AA’ or two ‘AAA’ batteries; [0012]), circuitry mounted on a substrate (circuit board; [0012]), and a vacuum pump (moderately-powered mini-vacuum motor; [0012]; [0015]); an upper portion of the main unit (see Annotated Fig. 2, above), the upper portion configured to house a reservoir (detachable reservoir, B1) coupled to one of a vacuum pump and a vacuum passageway connected to the vacuum pump via a hose (via ‘hole’ and ‘extension’; Figs. 1, 2; [0012-0013]); a reservoir cap (detachable reservoir head, B) configured to be affixed to one of the reservoir (B.1) and the upper portion (see Annotated Fig. 2, above; [0012-0013]; [0015]); a flexible mouthpiece (detachable straw, C; ‘made from a softer plastic or silicone material’) coupled to the reservoir cap (B; Figs. 1, 2; [0013-0014]); and a handle (handle, A) coupled to one or more of the lower portion and the upper portion (see annotated Fig. 2, above; [0012]), the handle (A) comprising a trigger (power button, A2) that is configured to cause the circuitry to activate the vacuum pump only when pressed ([0012]; [0015-0016]).
8. With regard to claim 6, McClure discloses that the reservoir (B1; Figs. 1, 2) is removable (‘detachable’; [0013]; [0015]).
9. With regard to claim 7, McClure discloses that the upper portion has an opening (at connection of reservoir head, B to reservoir, B1) through which the reservoir is visible (Figs. 1, 2; [0012-0013]; [0016]).
10. With regard to claim 14, McClure discloses that the reservoir cap (B; Fig. 2) is configured to screw onto the reservoir (B1) via threads ([0013]).
11. With regard to claim 16, McClure discloses that the trigger (A2) covers only a portion of an outer surface of the handle (A; Fig. 2; [0012]; [0015]).
12. With regard to claims 17-18, McClure discloses that the flexible mouthpiece (C) extends through (upon locking connection over extension) the reservoir cap (B) in an air-tight manner (Fig. 2; [0013-0014]); wherein the flexible mouthpiece (C) fits over a protrusion (‘extension’) from the reservoir cap (B) in an air-tight manner (Fig. 2; [0013-0014]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
13. Claim(s) 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure.
14. With regard to claim 5, while Figures 1 and 2 of McClure appear to depict the upper portion having a larger diameter than the lower portion (by virtue of the combined diameter of B and B1; see Annotated Fig. 2 above), McClure fails to explicitly disclose that the upper portion having a larger diameter than the lower portion.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the upper portion of the main unit disclosed by McClure to be explicitly larger than the diameter of the lower portion, in order to utilize reservoirs with a larger capacity for collection of tonsilloliths, food, and any other foreign matter drawn through the device during use, requiring less frequent detachment and emptying of the reservoir, as suggested by McClure in at least paragraph [0013].
15. With regard to claim 8, while McClure discloses the use of a bright light for illuminating through the reservoir cap (B) and flexible mouthpiece (C; [0012]; [0016]), and appears to depict the reservoir (B1) in Figures 1 and 2 as being transparent (see Figs. 1, 2 where attachment point between B and B1 is seen through B1), McClure fails to explicitly disclose that at least a portion of the reservoir is semi-transparent.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reservoir disclosed by McClure to be semi-transparent, in order to provide the user or practitioner with an idea of how full the reservoir is, to determine when the reservoir should be emptied, as suggested by McClure in at least paragraph [0013]. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by having a view of the contents within the reservoir, the user or practitioner can determine an amount of bleeding, if any, occurring during use.
16. Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Lam (US PGPUB 2015/0026917 A1).
17. With regard to claims 2 and 3, McClure is silent in regard to a charging base configured to receive the lower portion, the charging base comprising charging circuitry configured to charge the battery; wherein the charging circuitry is configured to charge the battery via one or more of wireless or inductive charging.
However, Lam discloses a tongue vacuum cleaner (abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 7, 8) comprising a main unit (2) housing a reservoir (trap, 20) in the upper portion and housing batteries (32) and a vacuum pump (30) in the bottom portion ([0026]); a mouthpiece (cleaning head, 10) connected to the main body (Fig. 2; [0025]); wherein the main unit (2) forms a handle having a trigger (on/off button, 14) configured to activate the vacuum pump (30) when pressed ([0014]); and a charging base (recharging stand, 50; Fig. 1) configured to receive the lower portion, the charging base (50) comprising charging circuitry (induction coils,36, 38 and associated electronics, 44) configured to charge the battery (32; [0028]); wherein the charging circuitry (44) is configured to charge the battery (32) via one or more of wireless or inductive charging ([0011]; [0028]; claim 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by McClure to include an inductive charging base, similar to that disclosed by Lam, in order to provide the device with a well-known means of inductive battery recharging, as suggested by Lam in paragraph [0028], reducing future costs of battery replacement.
18. Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Say (US PGPUB 2003/0163101 A1).
19. With regard to claim 4, McClure is silent in regard to a charging port on one of the lower portion and the upper portion coupled to the battery.
Say discloses a portable battery operated aspirator (abstract; Figs. 1, 2, 7), comprising a lower portion of the main unit (20) including batteries, circuitry and a vacuum pump ([0014]); an upper portion of the main unit (20) configured to house a reservoir (30); a mouthpiece (32) coupled to the reservoir (30; Fig. 1); and a charging port (charging jack, 21 and ‘external receptacle (not shown)’) on the lower portion coupled to the battery (10; [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by McClure to include a charging port coupled to the batteries, similar to that disclosed by Say, in order to provide the device with a well-known means of wired battery recharging, as suggested by Say in paragraph [0014], reducing future costs of battery replacement.
20. Claim(s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Vu (US 6,135,980).
21. With regard to claims 9-11, McClure is silent in regard to the reservoir being coupled to the vacuum passageway via a valve portion of the reservoir that extends into the vacuum passageway; wherein the valve portion comprises a one-way valve configured to allow negative pressure to flow from the vacuum pump, through the hose, through the vacuum passageway, and into the reservoir without letting any liquids flow back from the reservoir; and wherein the valve portion comprises an o-ring configured to create a water/airtight seal between the valve portion and the vacuum passageway.
However, Vu discloses a mucus suction device (abstract; Figs. 1, 2; col. 1, lines 16-32) comprising a lower main unit (pump housing, 10) comprising pump, battery and electronics; an upper main unit (collection vessel, 20) comprising a reservoir (chamber, 25); and a mouthpiece (conduit, 30 with tip, 32) for coupling to the upper main unit (20; Fig. 1); wherein the reservoir is coupled to a vacuum passageway (internal passage, 18) via a valve portion (within second nipple, 29) of the reservoir (20) that extends into the vacuum passageway (18; Fig. 1); wherein the valve portion (within 29) comprises a one-way valve (check valve, 33) configured to allow negative pressure to flow from the vacuum pump, through the hose, through the vacuum passageway, and into the reservoir (25) without letting any liquids flow back from the reservoir (col. 2, lines 16-25); and wherein the valve portion (33) comprises an o-ring (second nipple, 29) configured to create a water/airtight seal between the valve portion (33) and the vacuum passageway (col. 1, lines 56-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reservoir and vacuum passageway disclosed by McClure to include a one-way valve comprising an o-ring, similar to that disclosed by Vu, in order to utilize well-known means of ensuring airflow in one direction, as suggested by Vu in column 2, lines 16-25, while also utilizing well-known means of maintaining air-tight sealing connections between the reservoir and the vacuum component, as suggested by Vu in column 1, lines 16-32.
22. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Vu, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Say.
23. With regard to claim 15, while McClure discloses that the reservoir cap (B; Fig. 2) is configured to screw onto the reservoir (B1) via threads ([0013]), McClure and Vu are silent in regard to the reservoir cap being configured to "click" when fully tightened.
However, Say discloses that the reservoir (30) is configured to “click” (“snap”; via downward facing hook, 62 and lip, 64) into a reservoir cap (resilient clamp, 60) of the main unit (20; [0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the reservoir cap and the reservoir disclosed by McClure in view of Vu to be a snap-fit connection, similar to that disclosed by Say, in order to provide the reservoir cap with a well-known alternative means of ensuring that the reservoir is properly installed and held tightly against the reservoir cap to remain connected during use, but still allow for detachment, as suggested by Say in paragraph [0016].
24. Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Henderson (US 2,346,841).
25. With regard to claims 12 and 13, while McClure discloses that the reservoir (B1) is coupled to one of a vacuum pump via the vacuum passageway and reservoir cap (via ‘hole’ and ‘extension’; Figs. 1, 2; [0012-0013]), McClure fails to explicitly disclose that the reservoir is coupled to one of the vacuum pump and the vacuum passageway via a vacuum hose that extends through the reservoir cap; and a device lid configured to fit over the upper portion and conceal the reservoir and the reservoir cap, wherein the flexible mouthpiece extends through the device lid.
However, Henderson discloses a thermotic breast pump (page 1, left column, lines 1-17; Fig. 2) comprising a lower main body (of tubular metal holder, 60) including a vacuum pump, battery and electronics; an upper main body (of tubular metal holder, 60) including a reservoir (bottle, 62); a mouthpiece (suction cup, 66) for connection to the reservoir (62); and a device lid (removable cap, 64) configured to fit over the upper portion and conceal the reservoir (62), wherein the mouthpiece (66) extends through the device lid (64, via passage, 67; page 3, left column, lines 32-64); and wherein the reservoir (62) is coupled to the vacuum pump via a vacuum hose (tube, 70) that extends through the device lid (64, via stem, 69; page 3, left column, lines 32-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coupling between the reservoir and vacuum pump disclosed by McClure to be coupled via vacuum hose that extends through the reservoir cap, similar to that disclosed by Henderson, in order to utilize a valveless portable vacuum pump that provides suction through a stem in its device lid, as suggested by Henderson in page 3, left column, lines 48-52.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by McClure to include a device lid, similar to that disclosed by Henderson, in order to utilize a removable covering for effectively hiding the contents of the reservoir during use, while still allowing for intermittent viewing of the reservoir contents upon removal of the device lid, with a reasonable expectation of success.
26. Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Podmore et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0199135 A1).
27. With regard to claim 19, while McClure discloses a moderately-powered mini-vacuum motor to create the suction needed to remove tonsilloliths and other foreign matter from the mouth ([0012]), McClure fails to explicitly disclose that the vacuum pump is configured to create a negative pressure ranging from approximately 40mm Hg to approximately 200mm Hg.
However, Podmore discloses a saliva management system with continuous flow through oral device (abstract; Figs. 1, 2), comprising a vacuum pump configured to create a negative pressure ranging from approximately 40mm Hg to approximately 200mm Hg (20 mmHg to 70 mmHg; [0019]; [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the range of negative pressure created by the vacuum pump disclosed by McClure to range from approximately 40mm Hg to approximately 200mm Hg, similar to that disclosed by Podmore, in order to provide a negative pressure range sufficient for saliva and moist air to be are drawn into the device from the patient's oral cavity to be trapped or otherwise removed, as suggested by Podmore in paragraph [0019]. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and one having ordinary skill in the art would look to determine the optimal working vacuum pressure, in order to withdraw saliva and debris from a user’s mouth while not creating too much pressure that may cause unwanted damage to the tongue or gums.
28. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClure in view of Maher (US PGPUB 2014/0361101 A1).
29. With regard to claim 20, McClure fails to explicitly disclose that the reservoir has a volume ranging from approximately 200ml to approximately 400ml.
However, Maher discloses a personal misting device (100; abstract; Figs. 1, 10) comprising a housing (300) including a pump, a reservoir (300) and a mouthpiece (214); wherein it is noted that the reservoir (300) can be sized for any desired fluid capacity; in one example, the reservoir (300) holds about 600 ml, but reservoirs of larger, or smaller, capacity can alternatively be employed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified the volume of the reservoir disclosed by McClure to range from approximately 200ml to approximately 400ml, similar to that suggested by Maher, in order to provide the device with a reservoir having a desired fluid capacity, depending on the desired use, as suggested by Maher in paragraph [0033]. Furthermore, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and one having ordinary skill in the art would look to determine the optimal reservoir fluid capacity, in order to hold/collect sufficient saliva and debris from a user’s mouth during use.
Conclusion
30. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aida et al. (US 5,295,957) discloses a breast pump having pressure adjusting mechanism.
Chiang et al. (US 6,328,718) discloses a snivel sucker.
Purnell (US PGPUB 2017/0112980 A1) discloses a mucus sucking assembly.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J MENSH whose telephone number is (571)270-1594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571)272-7159. 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.
/ANDREW J MENSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781