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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of June 1, 2026 which amended claims 1, 4, 7 and 8; cancelled claims 18-21; and added new claims 22-24.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Note: The applicant states on page 9 of the Amendment that amended Figures 1 and 2 were provided. No drawings were included with the amendment but if the figures are labeled “PRIOR ART” as set forth in the amendment the objection below will be overcome.
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 amendments to the specification overcome the other previously set forth objections to the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claim 7 has been amended to set forth that “the rotary vane chamber is the sole fluid communication path from the first inlet to the second inlet”. The original disclosure did not describe this feature or make any mention that another fluid communication path is not allowed in addition to the claimed communication path.
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, 23 and 24 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) and a second inlet (16), both inlets being connectable (via lines 26 & 29; it is noted that “connectable” sets forth an ability of the inlets; the inlets 15 and 16 are each connectable with one or more chambers since, as shown, the inlets maybe communicated or connected to conduits or passages that communicate with chamber(s)) to a vacuum chamber (32, 36) to be evacuated, and a rotor (labeled in the annotated figure below) arranged for rotation about an axis (labeled in the blown up annotation of Fig. 2) 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 inlet to the second inlet and from the second about the axis and wherein the rotary vane chamber is the sole fluid communication path (labeled in the blown up annotation of Fig. 2) from the first inlet to the second inlet (As shown in the figure below there is no additional fluid communication path between the first inlet and the second inlet and thus the rotary vane chamber is the sole fluid communication path from the first inlet to the second inlet).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
641
media_image2.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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 23, Kist discloses the vacuum pump of claim 7, wherein at least a portion of the first inlet extends circumferentially towards the outlet (see blown up annotation #2 of Fig. 2 below) and radially outward (see blown up annotation #2 of Fig. 2 below) of the rotary vane chamber.
With regards to claim 24, Kist discloses the vacuum pump of claim 7, wherein at least a portion of the first inlet is positioned circumferentially between the outlet and the conveying volume in the conveying direction (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
498
762
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 and 13-16 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 and 15, 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 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).
Claim(s) 12 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 claim 12, 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]). Additionally, 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 previously gave official notice that the food packaging system has a package for the food in the processing chamber, which was not challenged. This is taken as an admission that this material is prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kist in view of Daniels (USPN 2,639,855).
As set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above Kist discloses a vacuum pump substantially as claimed, including a lunate conveying space as labeled in the blown up annotation #2 above. Kist does not disclose that the “rotation axis for the rotor is eccentric to a center axis of the cylinder in a direction away from both the first inlet and the second inlet”. Daniels discloses a similar rotary vane pump with first (15) and second (14) inlets and in Figs. 2 and 8 show the rotational axis being eccentric to a center axis of the cylinder in a direction away from both the first inlet and the second inlet.
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 placement of the rotational axis eccentrically to a center axis in a direction away from the first and second inlets, as taught by Daniels, as a well-known arrangement of the rotor relative to the cylinder of a rotary vane pump in order to create the desired compression ratios for the fluids suctioned via each of the first and the second inlets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues on pages 10-12 in the arguments addressing the rejections under 35 USC 102 that the structure 41 provides an additional fluid communication path from the first inlet to the second inlet. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The first inlet 15 is the port or passage through the cylindrical wall and the element 41 is located upstream from the first inlet. To reach the element/flow path through structure 41 the fluid at the first inlet would have to flow upstream, which does not happen. Instead the flow upstream of the first inlet is diverted around a second path and goes into the second inlet. But the only and sole fluid communication path for fluid that has entered the first inlet to reach the second inlet is via the rotary vane chamber. Thus the amendment does not overcome the already applied Kist reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jurr discloses a rotary vane pump having first and second inlets communicated with a single source.
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 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
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights