DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites, “…with a seal (8)…” It appears that the limitation reference number should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, and 17-19 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 claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "arranged at a distance suitable to receive a droplet of liquid…" The term suitable is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite because the patent specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite distance. Specifically, the size of a "droplet" is variable and depends on factors such as liquid viscosity, surface tension, and the background environmental conditions, which are not defined by the claim. Consequently, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the "distance" required by the claim. See further MPEP 2173.05(b). To overcome this rejection, the applicant should amend the claim to recite a specific structural distance or explicitly define the parameters of the droplet in a way which is supported by the original specification.
Regarding claim 7, the term "PCBA" lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 6 introduces a "Printed Circuit Board Assembly," but does not specifically define such with the acronym "PCBA." To overcome this rejection, the applicant should amend either claim 6 to include the acronym of "PCBA," or claim 7 to recite the full term of "Printed Circuit Board Assembly."
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites alternative species for the removable cover: "a silicon sealing piece or a plastic holder…" However, the subsequent limitation requires, "wherein… the holder [is] provided with corresponding structures for closure." The term "the holder" lacks antecedent basis when the "silicon sealing piece" alternative is selected. It is unclear if the "silicon sealing piece" is also intended to be a "holder," or if the limitation regarding "corresponding structures" is intended to apply only when the "plastic holder" species is selected. As written, the claim imposes a requirement for a "holder" on the "silicon sealing piece" embodiment where no such holder has been defined. To overcome this rejection, the applicant should revise the claim to clarify that the structures are on "the removable cover" generally, or restrict the closure structure limitation to the specific embodiment where the holder is present in a separate claim.
Regarding claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-19; these claims are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albritton (US 2005/0039420 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Albritton discloses a portable vacuum pump (Figure 1, #100) with protection against suction of liquids (Described in ¶ [0070]), wherein the pump is at an entry of an air suction channel (Figure 4, #430) of the pump provided with at least two sensors (Figures 5 & 7, #91A/91B) for sensing liquid (Described in ¶ [0062]), wherein the sensors (Figure 4, #51) are arranged at a distance suitable to receive a droplet of liquid (Described in ¶ [0063] and illustrated in figure 5) and wherein the sensors are connected to a controller of the pump Illustrated in figure 9 and described in ¶ [0067] that is arranged to terminate vacuuming upon sensing liquid with the sensors (Described in ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 2, Albritton discloses wherein the sensors are arranged at a distance from 1 µm to 5 cm (Shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Albritton discloses wherein the sensors are electrically conductive in order to allow closure of an electrical circuit upon contact with liquid and thus termination of pumping (Described in ¶'s [0063] & [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Albritton discloses wherein the sensors are shaped as rods or plates (Illustrated in figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, Albritton discloses a portable vacuum pump (Figure 1, #100) with protection against suction of liquids (Described in ¶ [0070]), wherein the pump is at the entry of an air suction channel (Figure 4, #430) of the pump provided with at least one sensor (Figures 5 & 7, #91A/91B) for sensing liquid (Described in ¶ [0062]), wherein the sensor comprises a plastic housing with a groove (Described in ¶ [0063]) for receiving a metal element (See ¶ [0062] - "electrodes #91A/91B") arranged to detect conductive materials of possible liquids (Described in ¶ [0063]), one end of the metal element is connected on one end to a Printed Circuit Board Assembly (Illustrated in figure 9 and described in ¶ [0067]), while the other end of the metal element is installed in said the groove of a housing (Shown in figures 5-7) covered with a plastic plate and the metal element is configured to sense conductivity of a possible liquid on contacting the plastic plate (Described in ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Albritton discloses wherein the metal element is arranged to detect liquids, to communicate with the PCBA in case of detected liquids and the PCBA is configured to cause the pump to stop operating when liquid is sensed by the metal element (Described in ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Albritton discloses wherein the metal element is shaped as a spring (Shown in figure 9).
Regarding claim 9, Albritton discloses the portable vacuum pump (Figure 1, #100) with protection against suction of liquids (Described in ¶ [0070]) according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the vacuum pump comprises:
- a housing (Figures 1 and 4 illustrate a housing) having at least one opening for connection with a valve or opening that allows vacuum storing in a vacuum vessel (Described in ¶'s [0029], [0030], [0045], [0062], [0063], [0066], [0070]), wherein the inside the housing contains:
o a pump for pumping air (vacuuming) the pump being powered by a motor and a power source (Described in ¶'s [0045], [0053], & [0055]),
o a suction channel (Figure 4, #430) starting at the opening of the housing and extending into the housing interior to form a pathway along which air is sucked into the interior of the vacuum pump (Illustrated in figure 4), wherein the suction channel is located approximately in the center of the housing interior (Shown in figure 4),
o the at least two sensor for sensing liquid comprising at least one sensor with a metal spring or at least two sensors (Shown in figure 5, #91A/#91B) for sensing liquid provided at the entry of the suction channel close to contact with a valve of vacuum containers, bags or other vessels (Described in ¶ [0057] - [0059]),
o the controller (Figure 9, #118) in communication with the at least one sensor with the metal spring or with the at least two sensors via connecting cables or wires (Described in ¶ [0068]), wherein the controller is operable to terminate pumping upon sensing liquid with the sensor (Described in ¶ [0070]), and
- a removable cover of the housing protecting the suction channel and the at least one sensor with the metal spring or the at least two sensors against environmental conditions (Described in ¶ [0032]), wherein the removal of the said cover enables access to the at least one sensor with the metal spring or the at least two sensors for maintenance (Described in ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Albritton discloses wherein the connecting cables or wires for connecting each of the sensors with the controller of the device, are made from conductive material and are connected to the sensors and electronics of the controller (Shown in figure 9 and described in ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Albritton discloses wherein the wires or cables are located along the sides of the pump and towards the sensors on one end and towards the electronics on the second end (Shown in figures 7-9 and described in ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 12, Albritton discloses wherein the removable cover (Figure 4, #102) is a silicon sealing piece or a plastic holder with a seal (Shown in figure 4, #406), wherein the housing and the holder are provided with corresponding structures for closure (Described in ¶ [0045] & [0051]).
Regarding claim 15, Albritton discloses wherein the pump is arranged for use with a vacuum container, a vacuum bag, or a vessel for storing food items (Described in ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, Albritton discloses wherein the pump is arranged for use with a vacuum container, a vacuum bag, or a vessel for storing food items (Described in ¶ [0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Albritton discloses wherein the sensors are arranged at a distance in the range from 0.5 mm to 0.5 cm (Shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, Albritton discloses wherein the sensors are arranged at a distance in the range from 1 mm to 2 mm (Shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Albritton discloses wherein the corresponding structures for closure comprise at least one chosen from threads, a click-closure, and pins and corresponding holes (Described in ¶ [0045] & [0051]).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albritton in view of Grill (US 2004/0149947 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Albritton does not specifically teach wherein the sensors are made from nickel-plated brass.
Grill teaches wherein the sensors are made from nickel-plated brass (Described in ¶ [0043]).
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 Albritton to incorporate the teachings of Grill to include the sensors made from nickel-plated brass with the motivation of providing an electrically conductive material with corrosion resistant properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claims 13-14 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731