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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold (U.S. Publication 2018/0369831) in view of Qian (U.S. Publication 2009/0065465).
Regarding claim 1, Arnold teaches a thermal decompression control device (paragraph 92 teaches the use of a pressure manifolds) for containers (item 115), the container filled with a magnetic fluid (paragraph 61 teaches ferromagnetic materials in a liquid) and a carrier liquid (paragraph 12 teaches transferring substances from one medium to another medium including a liquid). Regarding claim 1, while Arnold teaches a capture device for removing fluid (paragraph 53), Arnold is silent to the container being glass, the silicone tube, the protruding cylinder. Regarding claim 1, Qian teaches a decompression control device (paragraph 1 pressure release mechanism), comprising a glass container (paragraph 2 glass pressure bottle, figure 3 item 10), wherein the outer edge of the glass container comprises an extended and protruding cylinder (item 164 extends from item 10), the glass container connected to a tube with a silicone septa by the protruding cylinder (item 22 and 38 connected to cylinder shaped protruding item 164, paragraph 21 teaches the use of silicone for the septa), wherein the tube is formed into a hollow cylinder with one open end and one other end sealed (item 22 is shaped as a hollow cylinder that has a sealed end proximate item 36 and an open bottom end), wherein the open end of the tube is tightly socketed with the protruding cylinder of the glass container (item 22 is tightly socketed to item 164 via threads 160 and 168), wherein the producing cylinder of the glass container is a hollow cylinder (item 164 is hollow to accommodate attachment to item 10 and 22) communicating with the inside of the glass container (item 164 is open to item 10 when item 38 is pierced). Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture device for removing fluids of Arnold with the pressure release mechanism of Qian in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure within the chamber (see Qian paragraph 4). Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the entire cap out of silicone to allow for a secure attachment since 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.
Arnold is silent to the language of claim 2. Regarding claim 2, Qian teaches wherein a sealing component is provided at a junction of the tube and the container (item 38 is in between item 10 and item 22). Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture device for removing fluids of Arnold with the pressure release mechanism of Qian in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure within the chamber (see Qian paragraph 4).
Arnold is silent to the language of claim 3. Regarding claim 3, Qian teaches wherein the sealing component is a sealant (paragraph 31 teaches item 38 is used to seal the bottle). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture device for removing fluids of Arnold with the pressure release mechanism of Qian in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure within the chamber (see Qian paragraph 4).
Arnold is silent to the language of claim 4. Regarding claim 4, Qian teaches wherein the sealing component is a disk (item 38). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capture device for removing fluids of Arnold with the pressure release mechanism of Qian in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure within the chamber (see Qian paragraph 4). Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the sealing component based on the opening shape of the container since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774