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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3 in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of February 18, 2026 which amended claims 1 and 7.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/16/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The foreign references filed are not full copies of the foreign references, they are English language translations of portions of the foreign references with no drawings included.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (each of Figs. 1 and 2 are described as state-of-the-art in the Brief description of the Drawings section and in the first paragraph Description of the State of the Art Fig. 1 is additionally set forth as being prior art). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be a single paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are number is grammatical and translation errors present in the instant application, such as the use of “und” instead of “and” at page 8 line 3; page 11, line 1; and, page 21 line 10; the applicant is requested to correct the above issue and to review the disclosure for additional errors.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification should not make reference to the claims, as at page 4 line 6-10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 the fluid should be set forth as being conveyed from the “first inlet (opening 1) to the second inlet (opening 2) and from the second inlet to the outlet (opening 3)” in order to agree with the specification and also to agree with claim 1 (which now depends upon claim 7 after amendment) at lines 11 and 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 10 and 11 the inlets are set forth as being “offset by an angle…in a conveying direction”. An angle and a direction is not a compatible comparison; either the angle should be described relative to a rotary axis of the rotor or a circumferential distance should be described relative to the conveying direction should be set forth. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “und” should be “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10 “the conveying space” should be “the conveying volume” to agree with claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the material after “in particular”, i.e., “correspond to atmospheric pressure” is intended to further limit the claim. Additionally it is unclear what is intended by “correspond to” since this could be considered as equal to, proportional to, related to or something else.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18-20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 18-20 set forth that the vacuum pump is a rotary vane vacuum pump but claim 7, from which claims 18-20 ultimately depend, at lines 5-9, already sets forth that vacuum pump includes a rotor having vanes extending therefrom and operating in a rotary vane chamber, i.e., a rotary vane vacuum pump; and claim 21, which depends upon claim 12 directed to a vacuum packaging machine having a vacuum pump according to claim 7, the rotary vane vacuum pump, and thus claim 12 already claims a rotary vacuum packaging machine as set forth in claim 21. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kist (USPN 4,957,283).
With regards to claim 7, Kist discloses a vacuum pump (see annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising: a cylinder (labeled in the annotated figure below) having an outlet (18, labeled in the annotated figure below), as well as a first inlet (15, labeled relative to the claim objection below) and a second inlet (16, labeled relative to the claim objection below), both inlets being connectable (via lines 26 & 29) to a vacuum chamber (32, 36) to be evacuated, and a rotor (labeled in the annotated figure below) arranged for rotation in a rotary vane chamber (labeled in the annotated figure below) and having at least two vanes (21, Fig. 2 clearly shows 12 vanes) which project radially beyond a body of the rotor and define with an inner wall (20) of the rotary vane chamber a conveying space (conveying volume) which, by rotation of the rotor, can be conveyed from the first
PNG
media_image1.png
540
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 8, Kist discloses the vacuum pump of claim 7, wherein the angle between the first inlet and the second inlet is designed according to the desired volume flows V1 and V2. Kist notes that the vacuum pump having plural inlets maybe design to have various capacities in dependence upon the application (see col. 1 lines 25-56 and note col. 2 lines 46-50). Additionally, this claim sets forth the intended results of a design process and is considered a product-by-process claim. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the vacuum pump, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. being designed to achieve desired flow volumes. In re Thompson, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
With regards to claim 9, Kist disclose the vacuum pump of claim 7, wherein the first inlet (15) and the second inlet (16) are a radial inlet (see Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 10, Kist disclose the vacuum pump of claim 7, wherein the number of vanes is selected such that there is a sealing point (labeled in the annotated Fig. 2 above) between the first inlet and the second inlet.
With regards to claim 11, Kist disclose the vacuum pump of claim 7, wherein the number of vanes is in the range of 3 to 17 (as shown in Fig. 2 there are 12 vanes).
With regards to claim 20, Kist disclose the vacuum pump of claim 7, said vacuum pump being a rotary vane vacuum pump (see Fig. 2).
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 factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art of Fig. 2 (hereafter AAPA) in view of Kist.
With regards to claim 1, as set forth in Fig. 2 the AAPA substantially discloses the structure of the pump including a vacuum chamber i (chamber 20), a vacuum chamber j (chamber 20’) a valve (41,42,43) for connecting, closing and separating the vacuum chambers from two vacuum pumps (21, 22) having separate vacuum pumping chambers. As described at page 16 line 8 through page 18 line 20 of the specification the device performs the method steps a) thru d) set forth in lines 15-24 of claim 1, note especially page 18 lines 4-20. It is noted that the chambers will inherently have initial pressures and final pressures after vacuum operations and the vacuum operations will inherently occur within an evacuation time period for each vacuum chamber.
AAPA does not disclose that there is a vacuum pump having two inlets and an outlet as part of a rotary vane vacuum pump as set forth in claim 7. As detailed above Kist anticipates the rotary vane vacuum pump of claim 7 and the Kist vacuum pump is disclosed as creating differing vacuum pressures and airflow conditions in two attached vacuum systems (12, 14). Kist further discloses a duct and an orifice defining means 41 which may be adjusted to optimize the airflows and vacuum pressures related to the two vacuum systems.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single rotary vane vacuum pump having two inlets that achieves two distinct vacuum conditions and airflows, as taught by Kist, for the two separate vacuums pumps (31,32) of AAPA since each of the single pump having two inlets and the multi-pump each having one inlet arrangements are recognized as equivalence for their use in the vacuum generating art for multiple vacuum systems and selection of either of these known equivalents to generate vacuums in different vacuum systems would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, it would be understood that by shifting the design from a multi-pump to a single pump system cost are reduced and a simpler system is obtained. It is additionally noted that, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02.
With regards to claims 3, 4, 5, 13, 15 and 18, AAPA in view of Kist disclose the invention set forth in claim 1 as set forth above. With regards to the limitations directed to the final pressures deviating from each other by a maximum of 25% (claim 3) or by a maximum of 5% (claim 13), the limitation p12(j) = p01(j) (claim 4), and the evacuation times differing from one another by a maximum of 30% (claim 5) or by a maximum of 5% (claim 15), it is noted that vacuum systems such as disclosed by AAPA in view of Kist are applicable to a variety of vacuum generating environments and applications. As noted in Kist at col. 1 lines 26-47 and the discussion from col. 1 line 65 thru col. 2 line 2 it is common to have varying vacuum requirements for a particular application. Further, Kist discloses at col. 3 line 45 thru col. 4 line 11 that the duct and orifice mechanism (40,41) can be used to optimize airflows and final vacuum pressures (which would each be understood to be related to required evacuation times) for the application and the distinct vacuum chambers (it is noted that the chambers could be of differing size) the pump is applied to. Thus, for a particular application, it would have been obvious to have optimized the airflows and pressures generated, and the evacuation times caused thereby, in the vacuum pump of AAPA in view of Kist to achieve the claimed conditions. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Further, with regards to the method steps a) i) thru a) iii) set forth in claim 4 these steps are disclosed in the description of the operation of the AAPA system at page 16 line 8 through page 18 line 20. Additionally, with regards to claim 4 and the limitation of the initial pressures corresponding to atmosphere, it is noted that in AAPA the third/unconnected vacuum chamber in each valve setting is set forth as being ventilated and therefore would be considered as corresponding to atmosphere.
With regards to claim 18, AAPA in view of Kist discloses the invention of claim 1 as set forth above and Kist discloses the vacuum pump being a rotary vane vacuum pump.
With regards to claim 2, as set forth above AAPA in view of Kist discloses the invention of claim 1, substantially as claimed. AAPA additionally disclose that a third vacuum chamber (20”) maybe present and with the shifting of the valve between the settings (41, 42 and 43) and the performance of the steps described at page 16 line 8 through page 18 line 20 the method of claim 2 will be performed. It is additionally noted that, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02.
With regards to claims 14 and 16, AAPA in view of Kist disclose the invention set forth in claim 2 as set forth above. With regards to the limitations directed to the final pressures deviating from each other by a maximum of 25% (claim 14) and the evacuation times differing from one another by a maximum of 30% (claim 16), it is noted that vacuum systems such as disclosed by AAPA in view of Kist are applicable to a variety of vacuum generating environments and applications. As noted in Kist at col. 1 lines 26-47 and the discussion from col. 1 line 65 thru col. 2 line 2 it is common to have varying vacuum requirements for a particular application. Further, Kist discloses at col. 3 line 45 thru col. 4 line 11 that the duct and orifice mechanism (40,41) can be used to optimize airflows and final vacuum pressures (which would each be understood to be related to required evacuation times) for the application and the distinct vacuum chambers (it is noted that the chambers could be of differing size) the pump is applied to. Thus, for a particular application, it would have been obvious to optimize the airflows and pressures generated, and the evacuation times caused thereby, in the vacuum pump of AAPA in view of Kist to achieve the claimed conditions. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
With regards to claim 19, AAPA in view of Kist discloses the invention of claim 2 as set forth above and Kist discloses the vacuum pump being a rotary vane vacuum pump.
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art of Fig. 2 (hereafter AAPA) in view of Kist, as evidenced by Rosentraeter (USPAP 2024/0138448).
With regards to claims 12 and 21, as noted above AAPA in view of Kist disclose the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose the material in the preamble of the machine being a vacuum packaging machine. However, this limitation is considered as an intended use of the vacuum system set forth in the preamble; and, the recitation that the device is a “vacuum packaging machine” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kroppa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Further, as evidenced by Rosentraeter, it is common to use rotary vane vacuum pumps (see [0006]) as part of a vacuum system in a food packaging machine (see [0003]). With regards to claim 21, since the vacuum pump of Kist is a rotary vacuum pump the system would be a rotary vacuum packaging system. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Kist as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Rosentraeter (USPAP 2024/0138448).
As set forth above, AAPA in view of Kist discloses the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose wherein the vacuum chamber i and/or the vacuum chamber j is an external chamber which contains a package for a foodstuff. Rosentraeter discloses a food packaging system (see [0003)) having an external vacuum chamber (40) that is connected to a vacuum pump disclosed as a rotary vane vacuum pump [0006]. The Examiner gives official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the food packaging system has a package for the food in the processing chamber.
At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a package, as taught by Rosentraeter, in one or each of the vacuum chambers of AAPA in view of Kist as a well-known application of a vacuum system that utilizes a rotary vane vacuum pump order to generate vacuum in a vacuum chamber and to package and preserve food stuffs for extended periods of time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
March 7, 2026