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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in the first paragraph on page 10 that the latch
components are positioned outside the main housing and operate upon the external post 60 resulting in a bulky, multi-component structure, whereas the instant invention eliminates the need for an external post to provide a self-contained, compact configuration, it is noted that the claims does not require the locking assembly to be positioned inside the main housing or integrated therewith. The claims merely require the locking assembly comprise ‘a plurality of protrusions positioned on the outer surface of the plunger’ and ‘an engaging member attached to the housing’, wherein the claims are silent to any internal post. Therefore, the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a self-contained, compact configuration) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed invention requires a locking assembly having a plurality of protrusions positioned n the outer surface of the plunger itself whereas the prior art discloses the notches are recesses formed along an external post extending beyond the housing, the projections between recesses 61 on the plunger 60 of Tarrats define a plurality of protrusions (as shown and indicated in the image below), wherein they are formed on an outside surface of the plunger, as shown in figure 2. Applicant further argues that the engaging member of Tarrats does not engage radially with the protrusions, however, since the plunger 60 is a cylindrical post, the engagement of the engaging member 62 resting between the protrusions on either side of notch 61 to hold the plunger 60 in place, they are radially engaged with the protrusions. Additionally, it is noted that the claims do not recite a radial engagement. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a self-contained, compact configuration) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tarrats (US 4971053).
Regarding claim 1, Tarrats discloses a device to remove obstruction from throat of a user, comprising: a suction assembly, comprising: a housing (12) configured as a hollow cylindrical body and defining an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the housing comprises: a housing proximal end (14); and a housing distal end (13); a plunger (16, 60) configured to be housed and move within the housing, the plunger defining an outer surface, wherein the plunger comprises: a plunger proximal end; and a plunger distal end (figure 2); wherein the plunger is configured to move within the hollow cylindrical body between a first position and a second position; wherein in the first position, the plunger distal end is positioned near the housing distal end; and wherein in the second position (C:4, L:5-20), the plunger distal end is positioned farther from the housing distal end; a biasing member (31) positioned between the plunger distal end and the housing distal end and configured to bias the plunger in the second position; and a locking assembly (32), comprising: a plurality of protrusions (see image below) positioned on the outer surface of the plunger; and an engaging member (63, 62, 64) attached to the housing, wherein the engaging member is configurable between a hold position and a release position (figure 2, and depression of 63, C:4, L:15-20); wherein in the hold position, the engaging member is engaged with one of the plurality of protrusions to hold the plunger distal end near the housing distal end (figure 2); and wherein in the release position, the engaging member is disengaged from the one of the plurality of protrusions, to allow the plunger distal end to move farther from the housing distal end (C:4, L:15-20), to thereby create vacuum with the housing in a region between the plunger distal end and the housing distal end (C:4, L:20-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tarrats discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the biasing member is one of: a compression spring (C:2, L:52).
Regarding claim 3, Tarrats discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the engaging member comprises: a lever (63) pivoted to the outer surface of the housing and comprising: a first lever end (62); and a second lever end (63); wherein the first lever end is configured to engage with one of the plurality of protrusions positioned on the outer surface of the plunger, and wherein the second lever end is configured to be manipulated by a user to thereby disengage the engaging member from the one of the plurality of protrusions (C:4, L:5-35).
Regarding claim 4, Tarrats discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein at least a part of the plunger forms an air-tight contact with the inner surface of the housing (C:2, L:39-41).
Regarding claim 5, Tarrats discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1 further comprising: a face mask (21) defining an opening at its center, wherein the face mask is configured to be positioned at the face of a user, to enclose mouth and nose of the user.
Regarding claim 6, Tarrats discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the housing distal end defines a hole (15); and wherein the housing distal end further comprises: a throat tube defining (24): a first end connected to the housing distal end, via the hole; and a second end, wherein the second end of the throat tube is configured to pass through an opening associated with a face mask and enter into mouth of a user (figure 2).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarrats (US 4971053) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deluca et al (US 20120221010).
Regarding claim 7, Tarrats discloses all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the locking assembly comprises: a first-level protrusion; and a second-level protrusion (61); wherein each of the first-level protrusion and the second-level protrusion, is positioned on the outer surface of the plunger, wherein in the hold position, the engaging member is configured to be engaged with one of the first-level protrusion and the second- level protrusion, to hold the plunger distal end near the housing distal end (C:4, L:5-35), wherein suction pressure generated when the engaging member is engaged with the first-level protrusion is less than when the engaging member is engaged with the second-level protrusion to accommodate different sized victims and reduce the chance of drawing too much air into the chamber from the victims mouth and lungs and collapsing the victim’s lungs and that the size and shape of the cylinder or housing may vary as desired. DeLuca et al (hereafter Deluca) teaches it was known in the art at the time of the invention to vary the vacuum pressure for various displacements of the piston to known values to create the desired measured amount of vacuum pressure for a particular sized victim (paragraphs 0061-0062, table 1). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to specifically configure the device of Tarrats to have the suction pressure generated when the engaging member is engaged with the first-level protrusion in a range of 10 kilopascal (KPa) to 13 KPa, and wherein suction pressure generated when the engaging member is engaged with the second-level protrusion is in a range of 13 KPa to 16 KPa, in order to vary the vacuum pressure for various displacements of the piston to known values to create the desired measured amount of vacuum pressure for a particular sized victim since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm EST).
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, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/ANH T DANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights