DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment, filed 01/10/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification have been submitted with the amendment filed on 01/10/2025.
Amendments to the Drawing have not been submitted with the amendment filed on 01/10/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119. The certified copy has been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 01/10/2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a secondary filter” as claimed in claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Air suction means in claim 1,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, the claim recites in part “a suction device presenting axis of main development,” in line 5 and “said suction port, said support base, said air suction means, said photocatalytic filtering organ and said valve being arranged aligned on said axis of main development of said device” in lines 18-20 (emphasis added), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by axis of main development. It is unclear whether “development” refers to structural development of the suction device, or directional development of the airflow path. The claim further requires multiple components be aligned on said axis, however the axis of development is unclear, and it is unclear how one would determine compliance with the alignment requirement. Because the claim lacks clear objective boundaries and scope, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Clarification is required. The claim will be interpreted as a longitudinal axis of the suction device.
Regarding claims 6, the claim recites in part “wherein it comprises” in line 2 (emphasis added), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “it” is referring to. Clarification is required.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-2, 5-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caso (WO 2012/140454 A1; Provided in the IDS) in view of Lanza (US 6520071 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Caso discloses a transportable system (Figs. 1-11) to condition used mattresses (1), comprising:
- a container (2) made of a floppy material (Page 4 lines 6-9) designed to airtightly contain a mattress (1), said container (2) comprising a suction valve (4; Page 4 lines 27-31);
- a suction device (3) presenting axis (axis from filter to pump to conduit 9) of main development (Unclear what this means; see 112b rejection above), said device (3) comprising:
- a suction port (9/23) counter-shaped to said valve (4) of said container (2; Fig. 2),
- a support base (13/12) configured to keep said suction device (3) stably balanced on said mattress (1) when said suction port (9) is connected to said valve (4)
- air suction means (5) configured to be placed in fluid connection with said container (2) made of floppy material, through said suction port (9) and said valve (4), to suck air present in the mattress (1) contained in said container (2) made of floppy material, said air suction means (5) being configured to suck air along a single direction (Fig. 4; single linear direction from mattress to conduit 9 to pump 5 to filter 6) parallel to said axis (axis along which suction flow occurs ; Fig. 1) of main development of said device (3);
- a photocatalytic filtering organ (7) to filter the air sucked in by said air suction means (5);
- a containment body (Housing of filter, 7) to contain said photocatalytic filtering organ (7) and said air suction means (5); and
said suction port (9), said support base (13/12), said air suction means (5), said photocatalytic filtering organ (7) and said valve (4) being arranged aligned on said axis of main development of said device (3).
However, Caso teaches the different components but does not expressly disclose that: suction port, said support base, said air suction means, said photocatalytic filtering organ and said valve being arranged aligned on said axis of main development of said device.
Lanza in a related invention teaches a hand-held suction device in which the device components (motor (7), suction port (36), base (tip of terminal cap 32), , pump chamber (14), filter (Col 4 lines 45-46) and valve (3)) are positioned along a common longitudinal axis i.e. lengthwise direction of the device casing as shown in Figs. 1-4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the assembly of Caso by arranging the suction port, air suction means, filter and valve along a single common longitudinal axis, as suggested by Lanza, aligning components along a common axis reduces bulk and facilitates portability, airflow direction, and mechanical compactness. Therefore, substituting the axial arrangement from Lanza into Caso would have been a predictable, routine design choice yielding a more compact, and portable suction device.
Regarding claim 2, Caso teaches a suction device (3), suction valve (4) and said photocatalytic filtering organ (6) and a tubular conduit (see Fig. 1 attached below) interposed between said suction valve and said photocatalytic filtering organ but does not disclose tubular conduit being made of a rigid material aligned with said axis (longitudinal axis). Note: a tubular Conduit is shown in Fig. 1 that is part of the component (9), see Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lanza further teaches a suction device (1) comprises a tubular conduit (32) developing along said axis (longitudinal axis), said tubular conduit (32) interposed between said suction valve (3) and said filtering organ (Col 4 lines 45-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular conduit of Caso to be arranged along the main axis (longitudinal axis), as suggested by Lanza, aligning components along a common axis reduces bulk and facilitates portability, airflow direction, and mechanical compactness. Therefore, incorporating the axial arrangement from Lanza into Caso would have been a predictable, routine design choice yielding a more compact, and portable suction device. Additionally, incorporating a rigid material to the tubular conduit of Caso as modified would have been a predictable, routine design choice yielding an improved structural support and stable alignment for air-flow components.
Regarding claim 5, wherein further comprises a secondary filter (24 of Caso) interposed between said valve (4 of Caso) and said photocatalytic filtering organ (6 of Caso) configured to retain residues and impurities and prevent them from coming into contact with said photocatalytic filtering organ (6 of Caso).
Regarding claim 6, Caso discloses the suction device as claimed but is silent regarding wherein it comprises a connecting element configured to be removably interposed between said suction port and said valve.
Lanza teaches connecting element (modular connectors, 32 and/or 34) configured to be removably interposed between said suction port (outlet of 34) and said valve (3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction device of Caso by incorporating the suction device having a connecting element, as suggested by Lanza, which provides for an interchangeable connecting element.
Regarding claim 10, wherein said suction device (3 of Caso) comprises a gripping element (11 of Caso) disposed on an outer surface of said containment body (Fig. 1 of Caso).
Regarding claim 11, wherein said support base (bottom of 13 and/or 12 of Caso) has a diameter greater than the diameter of said photocatalytic filtering organ (6; Fig. 1 of Caso)
Claims 3-4, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caso (WO 2012/140454 A1; Provided in the IDS) in view of Lanza (US 6520071 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wallace (US 5228271).
Regarding claim 3, wherein said suction valve (4 of Caso) comprises a portion (Flat portion of 20; of Caso) conformed to a disc designed to adhere on an inner surface of said container (2 of Caso) made of a floppy material and a connecting portion (21/22 of Caso) designed to emerge externally from said container (2 of Caso) but does not disclose the portion conformed to a disc designed to adhere on an inner surface of said container.
Wallace teaches a suction valve (14) having a portion (24) conformed to a disc (Fig. 2) designed to adhere on an inner surface of said container (10; Col 4 lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Caso as modified to incorporate a valve having a disc-shape adhered to inner portion of the container, as suggested by Wallace, which would have been a predictable, routine design choice yielding an improved means to secure the valve to the container via pressure-sensitive adhesive which maintains its quality over an extended period of time.
Regarding claim 4, wherein said portion (24 of Wallace) conformed to a disc has double-sided adhesive a layer (Col 4 lines 49-54).
Regarding claim 8, Caso as modified teaches wherein said connecting element (32 and/or 34 of Lanza) and suction valve (3 of Lanza and/or 4 of Caso) including a first diametrically decreasing cross-sectional portion (See Annotated Fig. 6 below) along said axis configured so that said connecting portion of said suction valve (3 of Lanza) is designed to engage internally with said first portion (See Annotated Fig. 6 below of Lanza), and a second diametrically decreasing cross-sectional portion (See Annotated Fig. 6 below of Lanza) along said axis designed to engage internally with said suction port (28 of Lanza).
PNG
media_image2.png
772
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caso (WO 2012/140454 A1; Provided in the IDS) in view of Lanza (US 6520071 B1), and Wallace (US 5228271), as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Vilalta et al. (US 7328730 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Caso as modified teaches wherein said connecting element (32 and/or 34 of Lanza) and (3 of Lanza and/or 4 of Caso) but is silent regarding the geometrical teaching of the connecting element having a first cross-sectional portion diametrically increasing along said axis and adapted to engage internally with said connecting portion of said suction valve, and a second cross-sectional portion diametrically decreasing along said axis adapted to engage internally with said suction port.
Vilalta teaches a connecting element (355) wherein its geometry include a first cross-sectional portion (359) diametrically increasing along said axis (360 and 390 increase along longitudinal axis of device 355; Fig. 19) and adapted to engage internally with said connecting portion of said suction valve (312/315; Fig. 19), and a second cross-sectional portion (See annotated Fig. 13 below) diametrically decreasing along said axis adapted to engage internally with said suction port (367).
PNG
media_image3.png
782
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connecting element of Caso as modified by substituting it with the connecting element having a first cross-sectional portion diametrically increasing along said axis and adapted to engage internally with said connecting portion of said suction valve, and a second cross-sectional portion diametrically decreasing along said axis adapted to engage internally with said suction port, as suggested by Vilalta, which would have been a predictable, routine design choice to alter the shape of the connecting element to attain a predictable result of airtight sealing between the connector and the valve through such modification.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caso (WO 2012/140454 A1; Provided in the IDS) in view of Lanza (US 6520071 B1), and Wallace (US 5228271), as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Chin (US 20210025746 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Caso as modified teaches wherein said connecting element (32 and/or 34 of Lanza), a suction valve (3 of Lanza and/or 4 of Caso), and a second portion having a diametrically decreasing cross-section (See Annotated Fig. 6 above of Lanza) along said axis designed to engage internally with said suction port (28 of Lanza) but is silent regarding said connecting element has a first threaded portion having a cylindrical longitudinal cross-section designed to engage in screwing/unscrewing with a thread of said connecting portion of said valve.
Chin teaches a connecting element (20) having a first threaded portion ([0032]-[0033]) having a cylindrical longitudinal cross-section designed to engage in screwing/unscrewing with a thread (10) of said connecting portion of said valve (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction device of Caso as modified to substitute suction device having a threaded portion that mates with a threaded portion of a valve, as suggested by Chin. Having a threaded connection between said valve and said connecting element is known alternative for coupling two elements which ensures a tighter connection and prevents accidental slippage during air evacuation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached form (PTO-892) are cited to show suction device for evacuating air from a container. All are cited as being of interest and to show the state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 11 December 2025