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.
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Claims 6-8 are currently withdrawn.
Claims 11-16 are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/17/2026. These drawings are acceptable and have made moot the previous drawing objections.
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 2027/0129381).
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 (note that 20 is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space) assembly (see Fig. 1) comprising an intake port (the inlet port of 22, note that 22 is connected to 20) 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 connected to 20) on a vacuum pump (note that 20 is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space) (20), the vacuum pump, 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, note that 20 is made to or is capable of removing gas molecules from a sealed space) comprising an intake port (the inlet port of 22, note that 22 is connected to 20) 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.
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.
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.
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 with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
06/05/2026
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights