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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each instance of “said top surface” in claim 1, line 3 should read as “said flat top surface”.
“the top cover” in claim 1, line 6 should read as “the detachable top cover”.
“said top cover” in claim 1, line 9 should read as “said detachable top cover”.
Claims 2-7 are similarly objected to for depending on and failing to cure the above deficiencies of claim 1.
“said top cover rectangular” in claim 4, line 2 should read as “said top cover is rectangular”
“the desired vacuum level” in claim 6, line 4 should read as “a desired vacuum level”.
“the exterior” in claim 7, line 2 should read as “an exterior”.
Each instance of “said top cover” in claim 7, lines 2-3 and line 3 should read as “said detachable top cover”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a sensor mechanism in claims 1 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
a sensor mechanism corresponding to “a diaphragm” [0018] or “a potentiometric pressure sensor, inductive pressure sensor, capacitive pressure sensor, piezoelectric pressure sensor, strain gage, or variable reluctance pressure sensor” [0018].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20070227617 A1), further in view of Bergman et al. (US 20100200588 A1), hereinafter Bergman.
Regarding claim 1, Tsai teaches a vacuum storage container (“adjustable vacuum food storage container” [Abstract], Fig. 1) for storing perishable items (“food storage” [0018]) comprising:
a detachable top cover (upper cover 1 is construed as detachable when not “combined with the U-Shaped socket 2 by a joint pivot 11” [0019], Fig. 1) with a… top surface (surface of upper cover 1, Fig. 2) and one or more side walls (front wall mates with cover linking unit 131, Fig. 3) extending vertically from said top surface downwards (Fig. 3 shows vertical extension of front wall of upper cover down toward unit 131) to a bottom edge (bottom edge of front wall of upper cover 1, Fig. 3), a valve (exhaust valve 12, Fig. 2) placed upon the top surface (“exhaust valve 12 is disposed on the upper cover 1” [0019], Fig. 3);
a base plate (U-shaped socket 2 and base 3, Fig. 2) having a top surface (plate 22, Fig. 2), a bottom surface (bottom surface of socket 2 above base 3, Fig. 1), and one or more side walls (outer surfaces of socket 2, Fig. 1) and comprising:
a vacuum pump (vacuum pump 314, Fig. 5) for creating a vacuum (“vacuum state” [Claim 1]) within a vacuum chamber (area “between the U-shaped socket and the upper cover” [Claim 1]) formed within a cavity (area “between the U-shaped socket and the upper cover” [Claim 1], Fig. 2) formed by the top cover and the base plate (“between the U-shaped socket” 2 “and the upper cover” 1 [Claim 1]);
a groove (grooves 231, Fig. 1) placed along the top surface of the base plate (“on the square barriers 23 of the U-shaped socket 2 are grooves 231” [0020]);
an expandable seal (seal washers 232, Fig. 1) placed within said groove for forming a seal against said bottom edge of said one or more side walls of said top cover (“prevent the air from leaking when the machine are closed” [0020]);
a power supply (out connector power 33, Fig. 4) for providing power (“connect to external power” [0024]) to said vacuum pump (Fig. 4 shows connection of out connector power 33 and controller 31 which comprises pump 314);
a sensor mechanism (pressure sensor 321, Fig. 4) for detecting pressure levels within said vacuum chamber (“can auto-detect the pressure of the accommodation between the upper cover 1 and the U-shaped socket 2” [0023]);
a controller (vacuum controller 31, Fig. 4) for automatically regulating said vacuum pump to maintain said vacuum within said vacuum chamber (“vacuum controller associated with the pressure detective means for keeping the accommodation pressure at a vacuum state always” [Claim 1]);
a switch (power switch 35, Fig. 4) for activating said controller to maintain said vacuum within said vacuum chamber (“actuate the integrated circuit board” [0023] which “integrated circuit board drives the other constituents” like “vacuum controller” [0005] to “drive the motor 311 through the power switch 35 to switch on or off the vacuum pump 314 until the pressure of the accommodation achieving to the pre-determined. Wherein the pressure can be detected by the pressure sensor ranges from 0 to 60 Kpa (negative pressure)” [0023]).
Tsai teaches a top surface (surface of upper cover 1, Fig. 2) but does not teach a flat top surface.
Bergman teaches a flat top surface (Fig. 1 shows lid 104 as having a flat top surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top surface of Tsai to be flat. Tsai and Bergman are analogous arts because they both relate to vacuum storage container. Tsai teaches a curved upper cover. Bergman teaches a flat lid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a flat top surface. By doing so, one would be able to more easily storage multiple vacuum containers by stacking them. Furthermore, the courts have held that changes in size and shape may not render a claimed invention patentably distinct when a device having claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device and when a particular configuration is not significant. See MPEP §§ 2144.04(IV)(A), (B).
Regarding claim 3, Tsai and Bergman teach the vacuum storage container of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said power supply (out connector power 33, Fig. 4; Tsai) is provided by one or more batteries (spare battery set 34, Fig. 3; Tsai) contained within a battery compartment (Area battery set 34 occupies in Fig. 5; Tsai) within said base plate (“base 3 comprises… a spare battery set 34” [0021]; Tsai).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai and Bergman teach the vacuum storage container of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said top surface (plate 22, Fig. 2; Tsai) of said base plate (U-shaped socket 2 and base 3, Fig. 2; Tsai) is rectangular (“base 102 is rectangular” [0023]; Bergman) and said top surface of said top cover rectangular (“lid 104 is formed as another generally flat panel having a peripheral edge 114 that corresponds to the rectangular shape of the base 102” [0024]; Bergman).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20070227617 A1), further in view of Bergman et al. (US 20100200588 A1), hereinafter Bergman, and Kieck (US 20040099332 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tsai and Bergman teach the vacuum storage container of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said power supply (out connector power 33, Fig. 4; Tsai).
Modified Tsai does not teach is provided by an electrical cord.
Kieck teaches is provided by an electrical cord (standard 120 volt power cord (2), Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power supply of Modified Tsai to comprise an electrical cord. Tsai, Bergman, and Kieck are analogous arts because they all relate to vacuum storage container. Tsai teaches out connector power and a transformer. Bergman teaches a vacuum pump. Kieck teaches a standard power cord. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide an electrical cord. By doing so, one would obtain the predictable result of powering components of an appliance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20070227617 A1), further in view of Bergman et al. (US 20100200588 A1), hereinafter Bergman, and Schooley (US 20070095713 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai and Bergman teach the vacuum storage container of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
While Modified Tsai teaches said top surface (plate 22, Fig. 2; Tsai) of said base plate (U-shaped socket 2 and base 3, Fig. 2; Tsai) and said top surface (surface of upper cover 1, Fig. 2; Tsai) of said top cover (upper cover 1 is construed as detachable when not “combined with the U-Shaped socket 2 by a joint pivot 11” [0019], Fig. 1), Modified Tsai does not teach where said top surface of said base plate is circular and said top surface of said top cover is circular.
Schooley teaches where said top surface of said base plate is circular (“rim 26” of receptacle 20 “is preferably substantially circular.” [0033] is construed as a base/lower portion being circular, Figs. 3, 7) and said top surface of said top cover is circular (“This rim 26 abuts against the lid 30” [0033] is construed as the lid 30 also being circular, Figs. 3, 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surfaces of Modified Tsai to be circular. Tsai, Bergman, and Schooley are analogous arts because they all relate to vacuum storage containers. Tsai teaches a substantially rectangular container. Bergman teaches a rectangular container. Schooley teaches a circular container. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a circular container. By doing so, one would obtain a more aesthetically pleasing vacuum container. Furthermore, the courts have held that changes in shape may not render a claimed invention patentably distinct when a particular configuration is not significant. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20070227617 A1), further in view of Bergman et al. (US 20100200588 A1), hereinafter Bergman, and Pratt et al. (US 20180280202 A1), hereinafter Pratt.
Regarding claim 6, Tsai and Bergman teach the vacuum storage container of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said sensor mechanism (pressure sensor 321, Fig. 4; Tsai) comprises….
Modified Tsai does not teach a diaphragm facing the vacuum chamber;
a second switch placed adjacent said diaphragm, so that when the vacuum chamber has reached the desired vacuum level, the diaphragm makes contact with said second switch, deactivating said vacuum pump.
Pratt teaches a diaphragm (diaphragm portion 534 and diaphragm membrane 352, Fig. 5) facing a vacuum chamber (vacuum chamber 360, Fig. 5);
a second switch (switching element 530 “including an actuation portion 532” [0081], Fig. 5) placed adjacent (Fig. 5 shows actuation portion 532 adjacent to diaphragm portion 534) said diaphragm (see mapping to Tsai), so that when the vacuum chamber has reached the desired vacuum level (“switch pressure (SP) reaches the minimum target pressure (TPmin) as a result of the leaks as describe above, the diaphragm portion 534 begins moving toward the relaxed position (d1)” [0083]), the diaphragm makes contact with said second switch (“diaphragm portion 534 reaches the relaxed position (d1) as described above, the lower portion of the contact tip 533 makes electrical contact with the first flange 536 of the diaphragm portion 534 as shown in FIGS. 5 and 5C to close the circuit and provide the first switching signal (S1)” [0084]), deactivating said vacuum pump (“provides the first switching signal (S1) again at time t(3) that turns off the negative-pressure source 304” [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the container of Modified Tsai to include a second switch and diaphragm. Tsai, Bergman, and Pratt are analogous arts because they all relate to regulation of pressure in vacuum chambers. Tsai teaches turning of a vacuum pump when a pre-determined pressure is reached [0008]. Bergman teaches turning off a vacuum device. Pratt teaches turning off a negative pressure source when a diaphragm contacts an electrical switch. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a second switch and diaphragm. By doing so, one would obtain a simpler pressure control system that operates electromechanically rather than by sensors.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US 20070227617 A1), further in view of Bergman et al. (US 20100200588 A1), hereinafter Bergman, and Wang et al. (US 20200039719 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 7, Tsai and Bergman teach the vacuum storage container of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said base plate (U-shaped socket 2 and base 3, Fig. 2; Tsai)… placed on the exterior (exterior of front walls, Fig. 3; Tsai) of said one or more side walls (front wall mates with cover linking unit 131, Fig. 3; Tsai)… said top cover (upper cover 1 is construed as detachable when not “combined with the U-Shaped socket 2 by a joint pivot 11” [0019], Fig. 1; Tsai).
Modified Tsai does not teach further includes one or more clamps… that, when engaged, lock said top cover to said base plate, and when not engaged, allow said top cover to be fully detachable from said base plate.
Wang teaches further includes one or more clamps (one or more latches 16, Figs. 5-6)… that, when engaged, lock (“lid 14 is retained on the body 12 by one or more latches 16” [0040]) said top cover (see mapping to Tsai) to said base plate (see mapping to Tsai), and when not engaged, allow said top cover (see mapping to Tsai) to be fully detachable (Lid is construed as not “retained” [0040] and thus fully detachable when one or more latches 16 are in state of Fig. 5) from said base plate (see mapping to Tsai).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the walls of Modified Tsai to include clamps. Tsai, Bergman, and Wang are analogous arts because they all relate to vacuum storage containers. Tsai teaches removable pins for attaching a lid. Bergman teaches latch tongues on side walls. Wang teaches clamps on side walls. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide clamps. By doing so, one would securely retain a lid on a body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Small et al. (US 20040177771 A1) discloses a vacuum storage container with a flexible diaphragm capable of breaking circuits. Bokma de Boer (US 20170172352 A1) discloses a vacuum storage container with a pressure sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761