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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s RCE filing on 11/17/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 18-20 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-17 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I, drawn to the vacuum sealing apparatus in the reply filed on 12/20/2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “extends radially outward and longitudinally downward” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is considered downward. Prior to the quoted phrase, claim 1 does not disclose what is considered up or upward and does not disclose what is considered down or downward. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “extends radially outward, extends longitudinally along a side of the cap, and is laterally space from said side of the cap”.
Claims 2- 17 are dependent of claim 1, and are further rejected for being dependent of a rejected claim.
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 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Savicki et al. (7,937,914) in view of references Nguyen et al. (7,316,101), Thürig (11,084,611), and Bassett et al. (7,086,211).
Regarding claim 1, Savicki et al. disclose a hand-held vacuum sealing apparatus (400) for use with a bag (102), wherein said apparatus (600) comprises:
a cap (660) comprising a first passage (664) forming a first air path;
a body portion (602) releasably coupled to the cap (660) and comprising:
a second passage (662) forming a second air path,
wherein the second airflow path and the first airflow path forms a common airflow path when the body portion (602) is coupled to the cap (660);
a suction assembly (620) configured to draw air into the common airflow path; and
an outlet (see figure 13 below) for expelling the air,
wherein the cap further comprises an adjustable valve (672) for controlling the airflow rate within the common airflow path, and
wherein the suction assembly comprises a motor (620).
(Figures 11-13 and Column 8 lines 38-47, Column 9 lines 1-6, 13-19)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outlet)][AltContent: textbox (Savicki et al.)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
762
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Savicki et al. do not disclose a siphon tube, a perforated plate, a filter, and a variable speed motor, wherein the siphon tube extends radially outward, extends longitudinally along a side of the cap, and is laterally spaced from said side of the cap.
Nguyen et al. disclose a vacuum sealing apparatus comprising:
a cap (17) comprising a siphon tube (18) having a tapered surface and extending outwardly therefrom,
wherein the cap (17) has a first passage, and
wherein the siphon tube (18) in combination with the first passage forms a first airflow path;
a body portion (21) releasably coupled to the cap;
a suction assembly (11) configured to draw air;
a perforate plate (19); and
a filter (20).
(Figures 1, 2 and Column 5 lines 12-18, 27-34)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Savicki et al. by incorporating the siphon tube, perforate plate, and filter as taught by Nguyen et al., since column 3 lines 40-44 of Nguyen et al. states such a modification would allow the apparatus to vacuum seal conventional plastic bags.
Thürig disclose suction assembly (116) comprising a variable speed motor (VSD). (Column 22 lines 32-41)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Savicki et al. by incorporating the variable speed motor as taught by Thürig, since column 22 lines 32-41 of Thürig states such a modification would allow control of the vacuum pressure generated by the suction assembly.
Bassett et al. disclose a plurality of siphon tubes (180), wherein one of the siphon tubes (180) comprises a portion extending radially outwards from the cap (17). (Figure 7 and Column 5 lines 54-59)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the siphon tube of Nguyen et al., since column 5 lines 65-67 states such a modification would allow the apparatus to be used on a variety of containers.
However, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. do not disclose the siphon extends longitudinally along a side of the cap and is laterally spaced from said side of the cap.
In column 5 lines 63-65 of the of Bassett et al., the siphon is disclosed to have “various shapes with various lengths, sizes, diameters, and other variations”. This implies that it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the siphon to meet the needs of the user.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the siphon extend longitudinally along a side of the cap and be laterally spaced from said side of cap, since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence that the particular change is significant. [MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)]
On page 3 paragraph 16 of the Specification, the siphon tube is disclosed to have a L-shape. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Savicki et al., Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the cap, in combination with the siphon tube, is shaped in the form of a narrow marquise diamond. (Bassett et al. – Figure 7)
Regarding claim 4, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the cap (Nguyen et al. – 17), in combination with the siphon tube (Nguyen et al. – 18), comprises a lanceolate-shaped body with pointed ends that neatly fits into an edge of the bag (Nguyen et al. – B). (Nguyen et al. – Figures 2, 9)
Regarding claim 5, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the siphon tube (Nguyen et al. – 18) is L-shaped, comprising a first portion extending radially outwards from the cap (Nguyen et al. – 17), and a second portion extending perpendicularly to the first portion, substantially parallel to the body portion (Savicki et al. – 602). (Bassett et al. – Figure 7)
[AltContent: textbox (First Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bassett et al.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
358
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above, but do not disclose the first portion of the L-shaped siphon tube is integrally coupled to the cap.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the siphon tube integrally coupled to the cap, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (V-B)]
On page 3 paragraph 16 of the Specification, the siphon tube is disclosed to be integrally coupled to the cap, or alternatively be detachably coupled to the cap. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Savicki et al., Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the first portion of the L-shaped siphon tube (Nguyen et al. – 18) detachably coupled to the cap (Nguyen et al. – 17) via the second portion. (Nguyen et al. – Column 5 lines 35-40) (Bassett et al. – Column 5 lines 54-57)
Regarding claim 8, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the filter (Nguyen et al. – 20) is disposed between the cap (Nguyen et al. – 17) and the body portion (Savicki et al. – 602) comprises a sponge or sponge-like material for capturing moisture or food particles. (Nguyen et al. – Column 5 lines 31-34)
Regarding claim 9, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the perforated plate (Nguyen et al. – 19) supports and engages the filter (Nguyen et al. – 20) positioned between the cap (Nguyen et al. – 17) and the body portion (Savicki et al. – 602). (Nguyen et al. – Figure 2 and Column 5 lines 27-29)
Regarding claim 10, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the variable speed motor (Thürig – VSD) turns a fan (Savicki et al. – col 7 ln 54) or turbine blade to provide suction, drawing air into the siphon tube (Nguyen et al. – 18) and out through an exhaust port. (Savicki et al. – Column 7 lines 52-56)
However, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. do not explicitly disclose a battery.
Nguyen et al. disclose a vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a suction assembly (11) including a motor electrically connected to a battery. (Column 4 lines 62-67 through Column 5 lines 1-5)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the power source with the battery as taught by Nguyen et al., since column 5 lines 1-5 of Nguyen et al. states a battery would work equally well at supply power to the motor, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose a power button or switch, selected from the group consisting of: a simple on/off switch (Savicki et al. – 410); a pulse-type switch; and a multi-speed selector, for controlling the operation of the variable speed motor (Thürig – VSD). (Savicki et al. – Column 6 lines 32-34)
Regarding claim 12, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the variable speed motor and the battery are isolated from the airflow path. (Savicki et al. – Figures 12-13)
Regarding claim 13, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the variable speed motor and the battery are not isolated from the airflow path.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the variable speed motor and the battery are not isolated from the airflow path, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)]
On page 6 paragraph 28 of the Specification, the battery is disclosed to be isolated from the airflow path, or alternatively not isolated from the airflow path. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Savicki et al., Nguyen et al., and Thürig to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13 because such a modification would have been considered mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the filter (Nguyen et al. – 20) comprises a plurality of perforations or narrow passageways that allow for the passage of air while impeding the flow of liquid, moisture, particles, and debris. (Nguyen et al. – Column 5 lines 31-34)
Regarding claim 15, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the filter (Nguyen et al. – 20) is disposed within the siphon tube (Nguyen et al. – 18) or the body portion (Savicki et al. – 602), independently or in combination with the cap (Nguyen et al. – 17). (Nguyen et al. – Figure 2)
Regarding claim 16, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the plurality of perforations or narrow passageways in the filter (Nguyen et al. – 20) are specifically designed to prevent liquid, moisture, particles, and debris from passing therethrough while facilitating the flow of air. (Nguyen et al. – Column 5 lines 31-34)
Regarding claim 17, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the filter (Nguyen et al. – 20) disposed within the siphon tube (Nguyen et al. – 18) or the body portion (Savicki et al. – 602) is detachable for easy cleaning and replacement. (Nguyen et al. – Column 5 lines 31-34)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Savicki et al. (7,937,914) in view of references Nguyen et al. (7,316,101), Thürig (11,084,611), and Bassett et al. (7,086,211) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Crawford et al. (10,793,304).
Regarding claim 2, Savicki et al. modified by Nguyen et al., Thürig, and Bassett et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the siphon tube has a generally flat or vesica piscis-shaped.
Crawford et al. disclose a vacuuming sealing apparatus comprising a siphon tube (152) having a generally flat shape. (Figure 3 and Column 9 lines 23-26)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the siphon tube of Nguyen et al. by incorporating the generally flat shape as taught by Crawford et al., since column 9 lines 59-63 of Crawford et al. states such a modification would allow a relatively large internal cross-sectional area while providing a relatively narrow insertion profile.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 08/22/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 18-20 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Savicki et al. (7,937,914) modified by references Nguyen et al. (7,316,101), Thürig (11,084,611), and Bassett et al. (7,086,211), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
However, there is no disclosure in Bassett et al. of the claimed siphon tube.
Bassett et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a plurality of siphon tubes that have different shapes. In column 5 lines 63-65 of the of Bassett et al., the siphon is disclosed to have “various shapes with various lengths, sizes, diameters, and other variations”. This implies that it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the siphon to meet the needs of the user.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the siphon extend longitudinally along a side of the cap and be laterally spaced from said side of cap, since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence that the particular change is significant. [MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)]
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Bassett et al. and in view of a change in shape is a matter of design choice, it would have been prima facie obvious to obtain the claimed siphon shape because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant states:
Likewise, there is no disclosure in Nguyen et al. of the claimed siphon tube.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Nguyen et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of what shape of siphon tube is used. Nguyen et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a cap, wherein the cap includes a siphon tube. Bassett et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a plurality of siphon tubes that have different shapes. Bassett et al. is also relied upon for the teaching that it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the siphon to meet the needs of the user.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the siphon extend longitudinally along a side of the cap and be laterally spaced from said side of cap, since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence that the particular change is significant. [MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)]
Therefore, Nguyen et al. in view of the teachings of Bassett et al. and in view of a change in shape is a matter of design choice, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the siphon tube of Nguyen et al. to obtain the claimed siphon shape because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant states:
There is no disclosure in Savicki et al. of “a siphon tube,” as now recited in independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Savicki et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of a siphon tube. Savicki et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a hand-held vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a cap, wherein the cap includes a first passage forming a first air path. Nguyen et al. is relied upon for the teaching a cap comprising a siphon tube. Therefore, Savicki et al. in view of Nguyen et al. do disclose a hand-held vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a cap, wherein the cap includes a first passage, and wherein the cap comprises a siphon tube.
Applicant states:
However, it is unclear where a siphon tube would even connect to the chamber body 660 of Savicki et al.
In response to applicant's argument of how the siphon tube connects to the chamber body, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Savicki et al. disclose a hand-held vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a cap, wherein the cap includes a first passage forming a first air path. Nguyen et al. disclose a cap comprising a siphon tube. Therefore, Savicki et al. in view of Nguyen et al. disclose a hand-held vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a cap, wherein the cap includes a first passage, and wherein the cap comprises a siphon tube.
Applicant states:
There is no need for a siphon tube in Savicki et al., as Savicki et al. describes a skirt like nozzle 604 having an inlet opening 606 in which the vacuum is drawn through.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Nguyen et al. disclose the use of a siphon is disclosed would allow the apparatus to vacuum seal conventional plastic bags.(col 3 ln 40-41) Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modifying the apparatus of Savicki et al. in view of Nguyen et al. in order to obtain the benefit disclosed by Nguyen et al..
Applicant states:
There is no statement of modification nor is there nay motivation to modify in col. 3, lines 40-44 of Nguyen et al.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In column 3 lines 40-44 of Nguyen et al., the sealing system is disclosed to be used to “sealing conventional plastic bag of the type having a mating male rib or bead and female sealing channel along the length of the bag opening”. In column 2 lines 66-67 through column 3 lines 16, Nguyen et al. acknowledges prior invention that use “specially designed large storage bags having air valves arrangements” and discloses a need to “allow the user to vacuum pack contents of a resealable flexible plastic bag that overcomes the forgoing drawback”. This indicates that there is a need to not the use of specially designed storage bags having air valves, but rather be able to vacuum seal conventional plastic bag. Therefore, Nguyen et al. do provide motivation to the person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a siphon tube.
Applicant states:
Further, a mere statement that a particular claim limitation is design choice is not adequate. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a siphon tube as there is already a vacuum drawn through the nozzle.
In the reject of claim 1, the incorporating of the siphon tube is not considered design choice. Savicki et al. disclose a hand-held vacuum sealing apparatus comprising a cap, wherein the cap includes a first passage forming a first air path. Nguyen et al. disclose a cap comprising a siphon tube. Nguyen et al. also disclose the use of the siphon tube would allow the apparatus to vacuum seal conventional plastic bags.
Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Savicki et al. in view of Nguyen et al. by incorporating the siphon tube, perforate plate, and filter in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Nguyen et al..
Applicant states:
However, there is not disclosure in Bassett et al. of the siphon tube extending radially outward and “longitudinally downward and laterally spaced from a side of the cap,” as now recited in independent claim 1.
Bassett et al. is relied upon for the teaching of having a plurality of siphon tubes that have different shapes. In column 5 lines 63-65 of the of Bassett et al., the siphon is disclosed to have “various shapes with various lengths, sizes, diameters, and other variations”. This implies that it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the siphon to meet the needs of the user.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the siphon extend longitudinally along a side of the cap and be laterally spaced from said side of cap, since it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice absent of persuasive evidence that the particular change is significant. [MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)]
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Bassett et al. and in view of a change in shape is a matter of design choice, it would have been prima facie obvious to obtain the claimed siphon shape because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 January 8, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731