DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s amendments filed 12 January 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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 12 January 2026 disclaiming the instant invention to US Patent 12,209,005 is acknowledged and approved.
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 13-16 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.
Claim 13 recite the limitations " the solenoid valve, and the vacuum pump" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recite the limitations “wherein, the mason jar machine further comprises a solenoid valve arranged in the receiving cavity and connected to the main board… ”. The solenoid valve is already mentioned in parent claim 13, but is being mentioned again in claim 14 as if it is being introduced (“a solenoid valve”) and as such it is indefinite.
Regarding claims 14-16, each of these claims are dependent on a rejected base claim and stand rejected for including the same indefinite subject matter.
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) 1-2, 4-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum (US Patent 4,372,096) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Alipour et al. (US 2018/0251355 A1) hereinafter referred to as Alipour.
Regarding claim 1, Baum discloses a mason jar sealing device (fig. 1), configured to seal a mason jar body (1), the mason jar sealing device comprising: a main machine (fig. 1);
wherein, the main machine comprises a side wall (see fig. 1 below) and an isolation plate (7; see fig. 1 below) arranged inside and connected to the side wall, and a vacuum pump (15; col. 2 lines 29-36) is arranged above the isolation plate, another portion of the side wall disposed at another side (see fig. 1 below; disposed below the isolation plate) of the isolation plate near the mason jar body is used to install the mason jar body (fig. 1; col. 2 lines 24-26), the mason jar body is arranged with a circular lid (5) which is spaced apart from the isolation plate (fig. 1) and is configured to cover an opening of the mason jar body, when the mason jar body is installed to the side wall, the vacuum pump draws out air in the mason jar body to enable the circular lid to be attached to the mason jar body by atmospheric pressure (col. 2 lines 15-17; col. 3 lines 3-26; Abstract);
wherein the isolation plate is arranged with an air delivery pipe (14);
the vacuum pump is connected with the air delivery pipe (fig. 1), and the vacuum pump draws air through the air delivery pipe from the mason jar body (col. 2 lines 15-17, 29-36; col. 3 lines 3-26; Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baum discloses the isolation plate and a portion of the side wall disposed at a side of the isolation plate away from the mason jar body and a vacuum pump (15; col. 2 lines 29-36) is arranged above the isolation plate and wherein the isolation plate is arranged with an air delivery pipe and the vacuum pump draws air through the air delivery pipe from the mason jar body, but doesn’t disclose 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, and a vacuum pump is arranged in the receiving cavity, wherein the isolation plate is arranged with an air delivery pipe, and the receiving cavity is arranged with a main board 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
However, Chen teaches an isolation plate (28 and/or 29) and a portion 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), and a vacuum pump (2; col. 4 lines 6-20) is arranged in the receiving cavity above the isolation plate (fig. 3), wherein the isolation plate is arranged with an air delivery pipe (31; col. 3 lines 17-28), and the receiving cavity is arranged with a main board (46; fig. 5); the air delivery pipe (31) is arranged inside the main machine (fig. 5) and is extending from the isolation plate (28 and/or 29) towards the another side of the isolation plate (fig. 5), 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).
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 Baum with the receiving cavity and board of Chen. Baum has a vacuum pump above the isolation plate, but does not disclose having a cavity for the pump. Chen teaches that it was known in the art to have a pump in a receiving container. The benefit of this is that the pump can be included with the device as a whole 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 board to better control the function of the pump to correspond to a desired amount of vacuum being applied to the jar.
Baum as modified by Chen discloses an air delivery pipe (Baum – 14; Chen - 31), wherein the air delivery pipe (Chen - 31) is arranged inside the main machine (Chen – fig. 5) and is extending from the isolation plate towards the another side of the isolation plate (Chen – fig. 5), but does not disclose the air delivery pipe is extending from the isolation plate towards the another side of the isolation plate near the mason jar body; the circular lid for covering the opening of the mason jar body is disposed spaced apart from an end of the air delivery pipe away from the isolation plate.
However, Alipour teaches wherein the air delivery pipe (118) is arranged inside the main machine (fig. 9) and is extending from the isolation plate (106, 132) towards the another side of the isolation plate near the mason jar body (200); the circular lid (210) for covering the opening of the mason jar body is disposed spaced apart from an end of the air delivery pipe away from the isolation plate (fig. 9).
Given the teachings of Alipour, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Baum in view of Chen to have the air delivery pipe positioned near the mason jar body but spaced apart from the circular lid. Baum as modified by Chen already discloses the delivery pipe extending away from the isolation plate. Alipour teaches that it would be obvious to have that air delivery pipe be spaced apart from the lid to ensure that it was located close to the air it was intended to remove but not so close that it might accidentally grab the lid and restrict air movement within the delivery pipe.
Regarding claim 2, Baum discloses wherein the mason jar machine further comprises a sleeve (9; and/or sleeve with 12), the sleeve is connected (@ 8) to the another portion of the side wall at the another side of the isolation plate near the mason jar body, and is configured to install the mason jar body to the side wall (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Baum discloses wherein the sleeve (9, 10; and/or sleeve with 12) comprises a first sleeve (9, 10; or sleeve with 12) configured to couple with the mason jar body of a first opening size and a second sleeve (sleeve with 12; or 9, 10, 11, 13) configured to couple with the mason jar body of a second opening size different from the first opening size; the vacuum pump (15) 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 7-36).
Regarding claim 5, Baum discloses wherein the second sleeve (sleeve with 12; or 9, 10, 11, 13) is arranged with the circular lid (5), the circular lid is arranged with a slot (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 (fig. 1), and the vacuum pump 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 (col. 2 lines 15-17; col. 3 lines 3-26; Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Baum discloses wherein the main machine further comprises a connecting part (8; portion between 10 and 12), located between the first sleeve and the second sleeve.
Regarding claim 7, Baum as modified by Chen discloses wherein an upper cover (Chen – top cover which houses 45 and 50 as seen in figs. 2 and 6) is connected to the receiving cavity.
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 Baum with the receiving cavity Chen. Baum has a vacuum pump above the isolation plate, but does not disclose having a cavity for the pump. Chen teaches that it was known in the art to have a pump in a receiving container with an upper cover. The benefit of this is that the pump can be included with the device as a whole making it more compact and simplifying use by having it be an all-in-one device and the upper cover will help to protect the pump and provide a surface for an interface.
Regarding claim 8, Baum 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 Baum 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 takes official notice 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.
Regarding claim 17, Baum discloses wherein the mason jar machine further comprises a sealing ring (10 or 12) arranged between the opening of the mason jar body and the sleeve (9; and/or sleeve with 12), 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 (10 and 12 extend below sleeve portion).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum (US Patent 4,372,096) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) 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, Baum discloses wherein the mason jar machine further comprises a valve (Baum - 17, 21, 23, 25), and is used to release the connection between the mason jar body and the main machine (Baum – col. 3 lines 11-26).
Baum as modified by Chen 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 (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 Baum 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.
Baum 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 Baum as modified by Chen as modified by Tsay to have the valve connected to the main board as taught by Ashcraft. Baum, 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.
Baum as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft discloses a valve (Baum - 17, 21, 23, 25; 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 Baum as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft be a solenoid valve. Baum as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft already disclose that a valve (Baum - 17, 21, 23, 25; 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 Baum 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.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum (US Patent 4,372,096) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Alipour (US 2018/0251355 A1) in view of Cabouli (PG Pub 2019/0367233 A1).
Regarding claim 9, 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 Baum 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, Baum 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 Baum 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, Baum 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 Baum 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, Baum 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 takes official notice 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 Baum 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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baum (US Patent 4,372,096) in view of Chen (US 6,662,831 B2) in view of Alipour (US 2018/0251355 A1) in view of Tsay (US Patent 6,968,870 B1) in view of Ashcraft (US Patent 8,488,314 B1) in view of Welles (PG Pub 2018/0368613 A1) in view of Cabouli (PG Pub 2019/0367233 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Baum as modified by Chen discloses wherein a power source (Chen - 100) is arranged in the receiving cavity (Chen - figs. 2-3), the power source is connected to the main board (Chen - 46; via 104, 106), and the vacuum pump (Chen – 2, col. 3 lines 42-47), and the power source is used to supply power to the main board and the vacuum pump.
Baum discloses wherein the mason jar machine further comprises a valve (Baum - 17, 21, 23, 25), but fails to disclose the solenoid valve connected to the main board.
However, Tsay teaches a valve (51), the valve is arranged in the receiving cavity (11) and connected to a controller (59).
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 and main board of Baum 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. Baum in view of Chen already discloses a main board, and having
Baum 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 Baum as modified by Chen as modified by Tsay to have the valve connected to the main board as taught by Ashcraft. Baum, 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.
Baum as modified by Chen, Alipour, Tsay and Ashcraft discloses a valve (Baum - 17, 21, 23, 25; 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 Baum as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft be a solenoid valve. Baum as modified by Chen, Tsay and Ashcraft already disclose that a valve (Baum - 17, 21, 23, 25; 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 Baum 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.
Chen discloses a power source, but does not disclose wherein the power source is a battery.
However, Caouli teaches a similar invention wherein the power source is a battery (78; paragraphs 0085, 0091, 0094) in the receiving cavity (figs. 6 and 9).
Given the teachings of Caouli, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the main board connected power source of Baum as modified by Chen to be a battery. Doing so would allow the device to be operated without the need to be plugged into a wall outlet thus improving portability.
Regarding claim 14, Baum as modified by Chen, Alipour, Tsay, Ashcraft, Welles and Caouli above discloses wherein, the mason jar machine further comprises a solenoid valve (Baum – 17, 21, 23, 25; Tsay – 51; Ashcraft – 82; Welles – 68, paragraph 0072) arranged in the receiving cavity (Tsay - 11) and connected to the main board (Tsay – 59; Ashcraft – 52, 60), the solenoid valve is used to release the connection between the mason jar body and the main machine (Baum – col. 2 line 53 – col. 3 line 2; Tsay – col. 3 lines 1-17; Ashcraft – col. 5 lines 25-31); wherein at least one mounting portion (Chen – 22, 23) is protruding from the isolation plate (Chen - 28 and/or 29) towards the upper cover and is arranged inside the receiving cavity (Chen - interior cavity of #21; portion above 28 in fig. 2; Tsay – 11; Caouli – interior of 260 fig. 23); 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 (Caouli - 78; paragraphs 0085, 0091, 0094), 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 15, Baum as modified by Chen, Alipour, Tsay, Ashcraft, Welles and Caouli above discloses the main board (Chen - 46), the battery (Caouli - 78; paragraphs 0085, 0091, 0094) and the solenoid valve (Tsay – 51; Ashcraft – 82, col. 4 lines 60-63, col. 5 lines 25-30; Welles – 68, paragraph 0072), 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 main board located above the battery and the solenoid valve. 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.
Regarding claim 16, Baum as modified by Chen, Alipour, Tsay, Ashcraft, Welles and Caouli 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 (Caouli - 78; paragraphs 0085, 0091, 0094) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 35 USC 112b rejections of claim 13 are maintained because the Applicant did not amend claim 13, but rather claim 14. The amendments to claim 14 are deemed to create new 35 USC 112b issues.
The Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 USC 103a rejection are directed toward newly amended subject matter. These new limitations are deemed to be taught by the prior art of Alipour (US 2018/0251355 A1) as detailed above. The prior art as modified by Chen is already deemed to disclose the air delivery pipe extending away from the isolation plate in the manner described. Alipour further teaches that the air delivery pipe would be extended in that direction but still be disposed away from the lid as claimed.
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