DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
The status of the claims for this application is as follows.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Claims 6-8 are currently withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cussenot (US 2021/0129381).
At the outset the applicant is reminded that:
1. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re Clm 1: Cussenot discloses a vacuum pump assembly (see Fig. 1, where the assembly is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space) comprising a vacuum pump (20 and 22) having an intake port (the inlet port of 22); and an intake fitting (25) directly coupled to said intake port with no intervening component between said intake port and said intake fitting (see Fig. 1); said intake fitting being a unitary body (see Fig. 1) having a base (the bottom portion of 25) and a Y-shaped region (the Y-shaped portion attached to the bottom portion) extending from said base (see Fig. 1), said Y-shaped region comprising first and second angled members (the first and second ends attached to their respective hose) terminating in respective free ends (see Fig. 1), said intake fitting having an internal bore extending through said base and each first and second angled members (see Fig. 1, the central passage through 25).
Re Clm 9: Cussenot discloses a compressor and a drive for the compressor (see 20).
Re Clm 10: Cussenot discloses a connection point (see Fig. 1) between an intake fitting (25) and an intake port (the inlet port of 22, note that 22 is part of 20) on a vacuum pump (20 and 22, where 20 and 22 is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space), the intake fitting being a unitary body (unitary being defined as a unit, where such structures form a unit) having a base (the bottom portion of 25) and a Y-shaped region (the Y-shaped portion attached to the bottom portion) extending from said base (see Fig. 1), said Y-shaped region (see the Y-shaped structure) comprising first and second angled members (see the angled away members) terminating in respective free ends (see the attachments to the respective hoses), said intake fitting having an internal bore extending through said base and each first and second angled members (see Fig. 1, the central passage through 25); the connection point consisting essentially of a sealed connection (at the interface) between said intake port and said base of said intake fitting (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 11: Cussenot discloses a vacuum pump assembly (see Fig. 1, where the assembly is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space) comprising a vacuum pump (20 and 22) having an intake port (the inlet port of 22); and an intake fitting (25) directly coupled to said intake port (see Fig. 1); said intake fitting consisting essentially of a unitary body (see Fig. 1) having a base (the bottom portion of 25) and a Y-shaped region (the Y-shaped portion attached to the bottom portion) extending from said base (see Fig. 1), said Y-shaped region comprising first and second angled members (see Fig. 1) terminating in respective free ends (see Fig. 1), said intake fitting having an internal bore (see Fig. 1, the central passage through 25) extending through said base and each first and second angled members (see Fig. 1).
Re Clm 16: Cussenot discloses a compressor and a drive for the compressor (see 20).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cussenot (US 2027/0129381) as applied to claims 1, 9-11, and 16 above.
Re Clms 2 and 12: Cussenot discloses wherein said base has a connection configured to mate with a connection of said intake port.
Cussenot fails to disclose external thread(s) mating with internal thread(s).
External thread(s) mating with internal thread(s) provide for a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made. The examiner is taking Office notice that it is old and well known for external thread(s) mate with internal thread(s), for the purpose of having a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Cussenot, to have employed external thread(s) mating with internal thread(s), with a reasonable expectation of success because one means of attachment is merely being replaced with another means of attachment, for the purpose of having a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made.
Note: the Official notice statement, henceforth, is taken to be admitted prior art, MPEP 2144.03.
Re Clms 3 and 13: Cussenot discloses said first and second angled members each have external threads configured to mate with internal threads on first and second respective hose fitting.
Cussenot fails to disclose external thread(s) mating with internal thread(s) on hose fittings.
External thread(s) mating with internal thread(s) on hose fittings provide for a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made. The examiner is taking Office notice that it is old and well known for external thread(s) mate with internal thread(s) on hose fittings, for the purpose of having a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Cussenot, to have employed external thread(s) mating with internal thread(s) on hose fittings, with a reasonable expectation of success because one means of attachment is merely being replaced with another means of attachment, for the purpose of having a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made.
Note: the Official notice statement, henceforth, is taken to be admitted prior art, MPEP 2144.03.
Re Clms 4 and 14: Cussenot discloses said external threads on each of said first and second angled members are sized to receive respective hose fittings.
Cussenot fails to disclose a 3/8 inch hose fitting and a ½ inch diameter refrigeration hose.
A 3/8 inch hose fittings and a ½ inch diameter refrigeration hose provide for a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made. The examiner is taking Office notice that it is old and well known for external thread(s) mate with internal thread(s) on hose fittings, for the purpose of having a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Cussenot, to have employed a 3/8 inch hose fittings and a ½ inch diameter refrigeration hose, with a reasonable expectation of success because one means of attachment or an alternative means of attachment is merely being replaced with another means of attachment, for the purpose of having a means or an alternative means for a secure joint connection to be made.
Note: the Official notice statement, henceforth, is taken to be admitted prior art, MPEP 2144.03.
Re Clms 5 and 15: Cussenot discloses said intake fitting further comprises a port in fluid communication with said internal bore (see Fig. 1).
Cussenot fails to disclosed that the disclosed port is a ¼ inch.
Having a port ¼ inch in size controls the fluid flow through a system, for the purpose of having a means to control the flow.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have modified the device of Cussenot, to have had the disclosed port be a ¼ inch in size, for the purpose of having a means to control the flow.
Note that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955), in addition or in the alternative, that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 167 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 in line 1 through page 14 the last line, that Cussenot does not disclose a vacuum pump assembly comprising a vacuum pump having an intake port; and an intake fitting directly coupled to said intake port with no intervening component between said intake port and said intake fitting and that no reasons for the 103 rejection modifications has been presented.
This is not persuasive.
Note: The Official notice statements, set forth above, henceforth are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant has failed to sufficiently traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official notice, as applicant’s arguments are inadequate. See MPEP 2144.03.
Cussenot disclose a vacuum pump assembly in Fig. 1, where the assembly is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space. Where the vacuum pump assembly comprising a vacuum pump, as elements 20 and 22, and where the vacuum pump has an intake port at the end of 22, being the inlet port of 22. Cussenot also disclose an intake fitting, element 25, and said element 25 is directly coupled to said intake port. There being no intervening component between said intake port, at the end of 22 that abuts 25, and said intake fitting, where the intake fitting 25 abuts 22.
Note that Cussenot may label items in a deferent manner, but the fact remains that Cussenot reads on applicant’s claims, specifically as to what constitutes as applicants vacuum pump assembly, vacuum pump, intake port and intake fitting. Where in the claim language itself is/are the structural/physical differences specifically presented. Note that it is improper to import structural limitations from the specification and applicant’s arguments into the claims.
Note that unitary merely implies being part of a unit and the device Cussenot, specifically the intake fitting is a unitary body (see Fig. 1) having a base (the bottom portion of 25) and a Y-shaped region (the Y-shaped portion attached to the bottom portion) extending from said base (see Fig. 1), said Y-shaped region comprising first and second angled members (the first and second ends attached to their respective hose) terminating in respective free ends (see Fig. 1).
Specifically note that the intake fitting is only element 25 and the vacuum pump is element 20 and 22.
Cussenot reads on the claimed structure(s) as currently presented and thus meets all of the claimed distinctions present in the claim(s).
The connection point of Cussenot does consisting essentially of a sealed connection, at the interface between said intake port and said base of said intake fitting as this is where the components meet and seal, that is at the interface.
Cussenot, again, is directly coupled as previously explained and the body is unitary as it is, is part of, or forms a unit.
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). Note that clear reasoning(s) were provided for making the 103 combinations, see the 103 rejections above for the reasoning(s).
Element 22 has not been removed from the rejection(s). Adding threads as claimed illustrate the structure as claimed, thus the claims are not in condition for allowance.
The examiner does/did recognize the result-effective variables.
The examiner does/did recognize the claimed ¼ inch port.
Note that the 103 are in light of the Official notice statement(s), where such has been taken to be admitted prior art, MPEP 2144.03.
Applicant is reminded that 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). Given the fact that
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A LINFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Eastern Time.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
JAMES ALBERT LINFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3679
09/04/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights