DETAILED ACTION
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 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stackhouse USPN 4,826,513 in view of Backscheider USPN 4,963,134.
Regarding claim 1, Stackhouse discloses a medical air filtration device (Abstract) comprising: (a) a main body comprising: (i) a main body lumen defined through the main body (figures: lumen through body 15); and (iii) a coupling structure disposed at an end of the main body (figures: bottom of body 15 couples to body 13): ; and (b) a filter body (figures: body 13) comprising: (i) a filter body lumen defined through the filter body (figures: lumen through body 13 containing filters); (ii) a particulate filter disposed within the filter body lumen (figure 2: pad 27); and (iii) at least one matrix filter disposed within the filter body lumen adjacent the particulate filter (figure 2: activated charcoal 29), wherein the filter body is removably coupleable with the coupling structure at a first end of the filter body such that the main body is fluidically sealed to the filter body and the filter body lumen is in fluidic communication with the main body lumen (figures: body 15 is coupled and sealed to body 13 via gasket 59).
Stackhouse does not disclose (ii) a sensor receiving housing disposed within the lumen. Backscheider discloses a similar medical air filtration device having pressure detection to detect excess pressure drop across the filters (see Backscheider column 8, lines 19-28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Stackhouse by including pressure sensors before and after the filters, such as in housings 15 and 17, in order to measure the pressure drop across the filters. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to include sensor receiving housings in these locations to hold the sensors in place, as is well-known in the art. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E). Therefore, the inclusion of a sensor receiving housing within main body 15 of Stackhouse would have been obvious in view of the teaching of Backscheider.
Regarding claim 2, Stackhouse discloses that the filter body further comprises a gasket fluidically sealed or hermetically sealed to a second end of the filter body (figure 3: gasket 61/65; column 4, lines 21-35).
Regarding claim 3, Stackhouse discloses an outer housing configured to receive the main body and the filter body, wherein the gasket is configured to provide a fluidic seal or hermetic seal between the second end of the filter body and the outer housing (figures: housing 17).
Regarding claim 4, Stackhouse discloses that the at least one matrix filter is disposed downstream of the particulate filter (figures 4 and 5: matrix filter 29 is downstream from particulate filter 27).
Regarding claim 5, Stackhouse discloses that the at least one matrix filter comprises two matrix filters disposed adjacent to each other in the filter body lumen (filters 29 and 31), but does not expressly recite a third filter. Nevertheless, filter 31 can be considered as two such filters (the top portion and the bottom portion). In the alternative, the inclusion of a third such filter would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B).
Regarding claim 6, any of filters 43, 47 or 49 (see figure 6) anticipate the claimed “liquid filter”, since each of these filters would be structurally capable of accumulating at least some amount of liquid.
Regarding claim 7, any of filters 43, 47 and 49 anticipate the claimed “remaining dust filter”, since each of these filters are structurally capable of capturing dust and all are located downstream of the at least one matrix filter (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, the activated charcoal filter of Stackhouse (Abstract) is structurally capable of capturing organic components; therefore, it anticipates an organic components filter.
Regarding claim 9, although Backscheider does not disclose the claimed sensor wire extending out of the housing, it nevertheless would have been obvious to include such a sensor wire extending out of the housing since the use of a wire to power and send information from such a sensor is well-known and standard. MPEP 2144.03 (A-E). Furthermore, coupling the wire to the filter body would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to secure the wire, as is standard and well-known to secure the wire.
Regarding claim 10, the activated charcoal filter of Stackhouse (Abstract) is structurally capable of removing VOCs and long chain organic compounds; therefore, it is configured to remove VOCs and long chain organic compounds. Furthermore, filter 27 is capable of removing particulates.
Regarding claim 11, Stackhouse discloses that the device is configured to be coupleable to and operable with a medical vacuum system (column 4, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 12, Stackhouse does not disclose that the filter body comprises a plastic material or polymeric material. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to have the filter body be made of plastic or polymer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 17-20, Stackhouse discloses a medical vacuum and filtration system comprising: (a) a medical suction device comprising a hose; wherein the hose is operably coupled to the main body such that an interior of the hose is in fluidic communication with the main body lumen (column 4, lines 36-52).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stackhouse USPN 4,826,513, in view of Backscheider USPN 4,963,134, in further view of Herbst USPN 5,242,474.
Stackhouse in view of Backscheider is relied upon as above.
Regarding claims 13-16, Backscheider discloses a vacuum unit comprising a vacuum motor, where the vacuum motor can be changed from high to low or low to high (paragraph 5, line 59 – column 6, line 8), but does not disclose that if the sensor detects at least one of smoke and VOCs, the vacuum motor is configured to increase from low to high, and if the sensor does not detect at least one of smoke and VOCs, the vacuum motor is configured to reduce from high to low. Herbst disclose that such a vacuum pump speed can correspond to a level of laser smoke production, with a higher vacuum speed being used for an increased amount of smoke detected (see Herbst column 2, lines 15-29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Stackhouse in view of Backscheider, to include a vacuum motor, where if the sensor detects at least one of smoke and VOCs, the vacuum motor is configured to increase from low to high, and if the sensor does not detect at least one of smoke and VOCs, the vacuum motor is configured to reduce from high to low, as disclosed by Herbst, for the purpose of having the speed of vacuum correspond to the amount of smoke detected, so that the system efficiently operates based on the amount of smoke.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 103 rejections. Applicant argues that the activated carbon filter of Stackhouse does not anticipate the claimed matrix filter. Applicant argues that in light of the Specification, the loose collection of particulates of Stackhouse’s activated charcoal do not teach the claimed matrix filter. The Examiner disagrees. First, it does not appear to the examiner that the activated charcoal of Stackhouse is a loose collection of particulates (see figure 2: 29), Regardless, paragraph 57 of Applicant’s Specification states that “[i]n certain embodiments, the matrix filters comprise a treated self-adhering carbon amalgamation matrix…”. The specification describing what “certain embodiments” include is not a definition. Therefore, “matrix filter” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and the activated charcoal filter of Stackhouse is deemed to anticipate the limitation.
The 112 2nd paragraph rejections are overcome by the amendments. The arguments about the amendments to claims 13-16 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER P JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7383. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571)270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776