DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response filed 6 August 2026.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “one end of the side wall is configured to be connected to the mason jar body…” The Applicant’s specification does not denote a reference character for the side wall, but it is generally understood to be the outer lateral walls of #15 depicted on the left and right sides of figure 5. However, upon review of the specification, this element is not deemed to be configured to be “connected to” the mason jar body (11). The disclosed connection is one that is facilitated by first and/or second sleeves 151, 121 and located at first and second sealing rings 114, 116. As such, the “connected to” language is deemed to potentially introduce new matter. For examination purposes, this limitation is being treated as referring to a connection facilitated by other elements but has been rejected as it makes use of language (“connected to”) not set forth in the original disclosure when referring to the side wall.
Regarding claims 3-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-17, each of these claims are dependent on claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons.
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, 3-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “one end of the side wall is configured to be connected to the mason jar body…” The Applicant’s specification does not denote a reference character for the side wall, but it is generally understood to be the outer lateral walls of #15 depicted on the left and right sides of figure 5. However, upon review of the specification, this element is not deemed to be configured to be “connected to” the mason jar body (11). The disclosed connection is one that is facilitated by first and/or second sleeves 151, 121 and located at first and second sealing rings 114, 116. Because the nature of connection is not fully understood given the language of the claims in light of the disclosure of specification, the limitation is deemed indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation is being treated as referring to a connection facilitated by other elements, but has been rejected as it makes use of language (“connected to”) not set forth in the original disclosure when referring to the side wall.
Regarding claims 3-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-17, each of these claims are dependent on claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alipour et al. (US 2018/0251355 A1) hereinafter referred to as Alipour in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Hsieh (US Patent 9,359,121 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Alipour discloses a mason jar sealing device (figs. 5 and 9), configured to seal a mason jar body (200), the mason jar sealing device comprising: a main machine (fig. 5);
wherein, the main machine comprises a side wall (fig. 5; side wall holding threads 114; alternatively, side wall holding threads 112) and a sleeve (sleeve holding threads 112; alternatively, sleeve holding threads 114), and an isolation plate (106, 132) arranged inside and connected to the side wall, one end of the side wall is configured to be connected to the mason jar body (@ 114 or 112); and a vacuum pump (paragraph 0025 – “vacuum pump”) and an air delivery pipe (118), another portion (portion of side wall holding threads 114; alternatively, portion of side wall holding threads 112) of the side wall disposed at another side (bottom side of 106, 132) of the isolation plate near the mason jar body is used to install the mason jar body, the mason jar body (200) is arranged with a circular lid (210; figs. 6 and 9) which is spaced apart (fig. 9) from the isolation plate (106, 132) and is configured to cover an opening (202) of the mason jar body, when the mason jar body is installed to the sleeve (paragraph 0022), the vacuum pump draws out air between the mason jar body and the circular lid to enable the circular lid to be attached to the mason jar body by atmospheric pressure (paragraphs 0025-0026);
the sleeve is disposed at a side of the isolation plate opposite the vacuum pump (fig. 5) and defines a receiving space configured to receive a portion of the mason jar body, thereby coupling the mason jar body to the main machine (paragraph 0022);
wherein the vacuum pump (paragraph 0025 – “vacuum pump”) is connected with the air delivery pipe (118), and the vacuum pump draws air through the air delivery pipe from the mason jar body (paragraphs 0025-0026).
Alipour fails to disclose an upper cover, the upper cover is arranged at the other end of the side wall; the isolation plate is spaced apart from the upper cover; the isolation plate and a portion of the side wall disposed at a side of the isolation plate away from the mason jar body define a receiving cavity, the upper cover covers an opening of the receiving cavity away from the isolation plate; and a vacuum pump, an air delivery pipe, and a main board are arranged in the receiving cavity; wherein the vacuum pump is connected with the main board, the vacuum pump is connected with the air delivery pipe, and the vacuum pump draws air through the air delivery pipe from the mason jar body; a battery is arranged in the receiving cavity is electrically connected to the main board and the vacuum pump and is configured to supply power to the main board and the vacuum pump; along a direction extending from the isolation plate toward the upper cover, the battery and the vacuum pump are positioned closer to the isolation plate than the main board is.
However, Chen teaches an upper cover (top cover which houses 45 and 50 as seen in figs. 2 and 6), the upper cover is arranged at the other end of the side wall (20; fig. 2); the isolation plate (28 and/or 29) is spaced apart from the upper cover (figs. 2 and 3); the isolation plate and a portion (portion of 20 above 28 and/or 29 as seen in fig. 3) of the side wall (20) disposed at a side of the isolation plate away from the mason jar body (1) define a receiving cavity (21; figs. 2-3), the upper cover covers an opening (fig. 2; circular opening of top of 20) of the receiving cavity away from the isolation plate; and a vacuum pump (2; col. 4 lines 6-20), an air delivery pipe (31), and a main board (46; col. 3 lines 29-32) are arranged in the receiving cavity (figs. 2-3); wherein the vacuum pump is connected with the main board (col. 3 lines 29-32), the vacuum pump is connected with the air delivery pipe (col. 3 lines 17-28), and the vacuum pump draws air through the air delivery pipe from the mason jar body (col. 3 lines 17-28; col. 4 lines 6-20); a power source (100) is arranged in the receiving cavity (fig. 3) is electrically connected to the main board (46; col. 3 lines 29-33; via 104, 106) and the vacuum pump (2; col. 3 lines 42-47) and is configured to supply power to the main board and the vacuum pump (col. 3 lines 29-47; col. 5 lines 31-37); along a direction extending from the isolation plate (28 and/or 29) toward the upper cover (top cover which houses 45 and 50 as seen in figs. 2, 3 and 6), the power source (100) and the vacuum pump (2 as connected at #32) are positioned closer (both power source 100 and vacuum pump 2 are located in contact with the isolation plate 28 while main board 46 is spaced some distance above the isolation plate as seen in fig. 3) to the isolation plate than the main board (46) is.
Given the teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour with the upper cover, side wall, receiving cavity arrangement, main board and power source of Chen. Alipour has a vacuum pump above the isolation plate, but does not disclose having a receiving cavity for the pump. Chen teaches that it was known in the art of container vacuumizers to have a pump in a receiving cavity topped with an upper cover. This modification would involve extending the side wall of Alipour above the isolation plate as taught by Chen. The benefit of this is that the pump can be included with the device making it more compact and simplifying use by having it be an all-in-one device. Additionally, it would have been obvious to include a main board to better control the function of the pump to correspond to a desired amount of vacuum being applied to the container. Providing a power supply would allow the various electrical components to be operated as they need electricity to function.
Alipour in view of Chen discloses a power source, but fails to disclose the power source is a battery.
However, Hsieh teaches a similar vacuum sealing device including a vacuum pump (35, 356) wherein the power source is a battery (col. 3 line 57 – col. 4 line 5; 32, 321, 322) and wherein the battery and vacuum pump contact an isolation plate (37; fig. 6).
Given the teachings of Hsieh, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the power source of Alipour in view of Chen to be a battery as taught by Hsieh. Doing so would allow the device to be more easily transported and be operated without need of a wall socket.
Regarding claim 8, Alipour as modified by Chen discloses wherein, a display device (Chen - 50, 52) is arranged on the main board (Chen - 46; col. 3 line 61 – col. 4 line 20; col. 4 lines 42-51 – In order for the input and display of the settings to be utilized there must be a connection to the controller 46).
Given the teachings of Chen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour with the display device of Chen. Doing so would allow a user to easily see the air pressure in the vessel so that a desired air pressure level can be achieved and maintained by the user.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Chen does not inherently disclose having the display device arranged on the main board, the Office alternatively took official notice in the Office Action of 5 February 2026 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have the display device on the main board. Having a display connected to a main board (i.e. controller) is a notoriously well-known means of ensuring that the desired information on the board can be seen by a user. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 17, Alipour discloses wherein the mason jar machine further comprises a sealing ring (112 or 114) arranged between the opening of the mason jar body and the sleeve (sleeve holding threads 112; alternatively, sleeve holding threads 114), when the mason jar body is installed to the sleeve, an inner wall of the sealing ring abuts against an outer wall of the mason jar body and is spaced apart from the sleeve (at least 112 is spaced apart from 104 which holds 114).
Claim(s) 3, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alipour (US 2018/0251355 A1) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Hsieh (US Patent 9,359,121 B1) in view of Tsay (US Patent 6,968,870 B1) in view of Ashcraft et al. (US Patent 8,488,314 B1) hereinafter referred to as Ashcraft in view of Welles et al. (PG Pub 2018/0368613 A1) hereinafter referred to as Welles.
Regarding claim 3, Alipour discloses wherein the mason jar machine is configured to release the connection between the mason jar body and the main machine (paragraph 0025), but fails to disclose a solenoid valve, the solenoid is arranged in the receiving cavity and connected to the main board, and is used to release the connection between the mason jar body and the main machine.
However, Tsay teaches a valve (51), the valve is arranged in the receiving cavity (interior of 11) and connected to a controller (59), and is used to release (col. 3 lines 1-17) the connection between the mason jar body (10) and the main machine (11, 20, 30, 40).
Given the teachings of Tsay, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour in view of Chen to include a valve as in Tsay. Doing so would allow a user to quickly release the vacuum seal between the main machine and the container and thus allow easier access to the contents when desired while still maintaining the seal up until then.
Alipour as modified by Chen and Tsay discloses the valve is connected to a controller, but fails to disclose wherein the valve is connected to the main board.
However, Ashcraft teaches a sealing device (fig. 6) wherein the receiving cavity (14) is arranged with a valve (82) and a main board (52, 60), a vacuum pump (74; alternatively 42) is connected (via 54; fig. 6) with the main board (52, 60), the vacuum pump is connected with the air delivery pipe (col. 4 lines 50-55), and the vacuum pump draws air through the air delivery pipe (col. 4 lines 50-55), the valve is connected to the main board (via 84; fig. 6) and is used to input gas when the valve is opened, so as to release the connection (col. 5 lines 25-35).
Given the teachings of Ashcraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour as modified by Chen as modified by Tsay to have the valve connected to the main board as taught by Ashcraft. Alipour, Chen and Tsay are concerned with the problem of creating and releasing a vacuum seal between two objects and doing so using a control board and other controllers. Ashcraft teaches how it would be known for someone concerned with that same problem to have utilized a board to connect both the vacuum pump and release valve. Doing so would allow the user to better control each of the operations via desired and preprogramed instructions.
Alipour as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft discloses a valve (Tsay - 51; Ashcraft - 82), but does not specifically disclose that the valve is a solenoid valve.
However, Welles teaches wherein a valve can be a solenoid valve (68; paragraph 0072).
Given the teachings of Welles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the valve of Alipour as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft be a solenoid valve. Alipour as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft already disclose that a valve (Tsay - 51; Ashcraft - 82) can be controlled by a board (Ashcraft - 52, 60, col. 5 lines 25-35), but is silent with regards to what type of valve it is. Welles teaches (paragraph 0072) that it was known to make use of solenoid valves controlled by boards (60) to control the flow of gas. Using a solenoid valve would make it easier for the board of Alipour as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft to control the state of the valve as it was known that solenoids can be effectively controlled by boards such as microprocessors.
Regarding claim 14, Alipour as modified by Chen, Hsieh, Tsay, Ashcraft and Wells and above discloses wherein at least one mounting portion (Chen – 22, 23; Hsieh - 32) is protruding from the isolation plate (Chen - 28 and/or 29; Hsieh - #37 in fig. 2) towards the upper cover and is arranged inside the receiving cavity (Chen - interior cavity of #21; portion above 28 in fig. 2; Hsieh – fig. 3, area inside of #3; Tsay – 11); and each of the solenoid valve (Tsay – 51; Ashcraft – 82, col. 4 lines 60-63, col. 5 lines 25-30; Welles – 68, paragraph 0072), the battery (Hsieh - col. 3 line 57 – col. 4 line 5; 32, 321, 322), and the vacuum pump (Chen – 2, col. 3 lines 42-47) is mounted on a respective one of the at least one mounting portion.
Regarding claim 16, Alipour as modified by Chen, Hsieh, Tsay, Ashcraft and Welles above discloses the solenoid valve (Tsay – 51; Ashcraft – 82, col. 4 lines 60-63, col. 5 lines 25-30; Welles – 68, paragraph 0072), the battery (Hsieh - col. 3 line 57 – col. 4 line 5; 32, 321, 322) and the vacuum pump (Chen – 2, col. 3 lines 42-47), but does not disclose their specific positions.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the solenoid valve located between the battery and the vacuum pump. Doing so would only require a simple rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C). The Applicant’s specification does not provide that the claimed positions are solving a particular problem or are for a particular purpose and shifting the position of the parts would not appreciably modify the operation of the device. The claimed positions of the elements are deemed obvious design choice as they involve only a simple rearrangement of parts and would be obvious to try so as to best fit the cited elements in the receiving cavity and avoid interfering with one another.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alipour (US 2018/0251355 A1) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Hsieh (US Patent 9,359,121 B1) in view of Baum (US Patent 4,372,096).
Regarding claim 4, Alipour discloses wherein the sleeve comprises a first sleeve (sleeve holding threads 112; alternatively, sleeve holding threads 114) configured to couple with the mason jar body of a first opening size (200; paragraph 0022), the vacuum pump (paragraph 0025) is configured to draw out the air in the first sleeve to enable the first sleeve to seal with the first mason jar body (paragraphs 0025-0026), but fails to disclose a second sleeve configured to couple with the mason jar body of a second opening size different from the first opening size; and the vacuum pump is configured to draw out the air in the second sleeve to enable the second sleeve to seal with the second mason jar body.
However, Baum teaches wherein the sleeve comprises a first sleeve (sleeve holding 12) configured to couple with the mason jar body of a first opening size (col. 2 lines 24-26) and a second sleeve (sleeve with 9, 10) configured to couple with the mason jar body of a second opening size different from the first opening size (col. 2 lines 18-24); the vacuum pump (col. 2 lines 29-36; col. 3 lines 3-26) is configured to draw out the air in the first sleeve to enable the first sleeve to seal with the first mason jar body; and the vacuum pump is configured to draw out the air in the second sleeve to enable the second sleeve to seal with the second mason jar body (col. 2 lines 29-36; col. 3 lines 3-26; Abstract).
Given the teachings of Baum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour as modified by Chen to have the sleeve include first and second sleeves. Doing so would allow for the machine to be used with different sizes of jars and thus improve its utility and cost efficiency so that a user would not need a different machine for different sizes of containers.
Regarding claim 5, Alipour as modified by Baum discloses wherein the second sleeve (Baum - sleeve with 9, 10) is arranged with the circular lid (Alipour – 210; Baum - 5), the circular lid is arranged with a slot (Alipour – slot for 220, fig. 7; Baum - slot that holds 6 as seen in fig. 1); when the second sleeve is coupling to the second mason jar body, the slot is configured to receive a circular can opening of the second mason jar body (Alipour – paragraph 0029; Baum – fig. 1), and the vacuum pump (Alipour - paragraph 0025; Baum - col. 2 lines 29-36; col. 3 lines 3-26) is configured to draw out the air between the second mason jar body and the circular lid to attach the circular lid to the circular can opening (Alipour – paragraphs 0025-0026; Baum - col. 2 lines 15-17; col. 3 lines 3-26; Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Alipour as modified by Baum discloses wherein the main machine further comprises a connecting part (Baum - 8; portion between 10 and 12), located between the first sleeve (Baum - sleeve holding 12) and the second sleeve (Baum - sleeve with 9, 10).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alipour (US 2018/0251355 A1) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Hsieh (US Patent 9,359,121 B1) in view of Cabouli (PG Pub 2019/0367233 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Alipour as modified by Chen discloses display and the display device is used for displaying status information in the mason jar sealing device (Chen – 50, 52, col. 4 lines 43-51), but fails to disclose wherein, a first through hole corresponding to the display device is arranged on the upper cover, the display device extends into the first through hole, and the display device is used for displaying status information in the mason jar sealing device.
However, Cabouli teaches wherein, a first through hole (hole for 206 seen in figs. 16 and 23) corresponding to the display device (206) is arranged on the upper cover (fig. 23), the display device extends into the first through hole, and the display device is used for displaying status information in the mason jar sealing device (paragraphs 0083, 0087, 0094).
Given the teachings of Cabouli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour in view of Chen to have the display arranged in a first through hole. Doing so would better protect the display and reduce chance of damage while still allowing a user to tell the status of the device at a glance.
Regarding claim 10, Alipour as modified by Chen discloses wherein the main board (Chen - 46) is arranged with a power supply (Chen - 100, 102), and the upper cover is arranged with a through hole (Chen - see hole for 100 in fig. 2) corresponding to the power supply. Chen doesn’t disclose the power supply is a charging port.
However, Cabouli teaches wherein the main board (262) is arranged with a charging port (208), and the upper cover is arranged with a through hole corresponding to the charging port (fig. 23 – hole for 208).
Given the teachings of Cabouli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour in view of Chen to include a charging port as taught by Caouli. Doing so would allow a user to ensure the vacuum pump was able to run without having to be connected to a wall outlet thus improving portability.
Regarding claim 11, Alipour in view of Chen fails to disclose wherein the main board is arranged with a switch key, and the upper cover is arranged with another through hole corresponding to the switch key.
However, Caouli teaches wherein the main board (262) is arranged with a switch key (204), and the upper cover is arranged with another through hole (fig. 23 – hole for 204) corresponding to the switch key.
Given the teachings of Cabouli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour in view of Chen to include a switch key as taught by Caouli. Doing so would ensure the device would only be unlocked by authorized personnel.
Regarding claim 12, Alipour as modified by Chen and Caouli above discloses a first through hole (Caouli - hole for 206 seen in figs. 16 and 23) for the display (Chen – 50, 52; Caouli - 206), but fails to disclose wherein a transparent display panel is connected to the side of the upper cover away from the main board, and the transparent display panel covers the first through hole. However, the Office previously took official notice in the Office Action of 5 February 2026 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Alipour in view of Chen and Caouli to have a transparent display panel is connected to the side of the upper cover away from the main board, and the transparent display panel covers the first through hole. It was notoriously well-known in the art to have displays of electronic devices covered with transparent and panel covers. Doing so protected electronics and while still allowing the display to be seen. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 112a/b rejections rely on amendments which do not address the claim language at issue. Claim 1 recites, in-part, “one end of the side wall is configured to be connected to the mason jar body”. The side wall is not deemed to be configured to be connected to the mason jar body. Various other elements of the instant invention are deemed to be configured to be connected to the mason jar body, notably first and second sealing rings 114 and 116 and sleeve 122. These are the elements which are deemed to be configured to be connected to the mason jar body. The Applicant’s amendments now positively recite that the sleeve (122) is configured to receive a portion of the mason jar body, but the unsupported language positively reciting the connectablity of the side wall remains.
The Applicant’s arguments as they pertain to the new limitations of the position of the battery, main board and vacuum pump are not persuasive. The original specification makes no mention of the relative position of these features being critical or serving a particular purpose. Placing elements within an internal cavity to make good use of the space and not interfere with one another is a notoriously old and well-known motivation and the device would be deemed to function just as well in a variety of configurations so long as adequate space was provided to not have various elements interfere with one another. These arguments notwithstanding, the prior art combination above, necessitated by the Applicant’s new combination of limitations, is deemed to address the cited positions of claim 1 as written.
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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights