DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 10/14/2025.
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 .
Claim Objection
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 “the elongated interface unit defined by a material in a manner that the one or more medical devices including a stethoscope are arranged operate through the material of the elongated interface unit” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the elongated interface unit defined by a material in a manner that the one or more medical devices including a stethoscope are arranged to operate through the material of the elongated interface unit – similar to amendment in claim 31.
Claim 24 “wherein the plurality of flexible and foldable walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion, arm portions and a ventilation system comprising a tube that arranged to provide air to at least the head portion of the gown body” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is --wherein the plurality of flexible and foldable walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion, arm portions and a ventilation system comprising a tube that is arranged to provide air to at least the head portion of the gown body—similar to claim 35.
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 26-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of independent claim 26 and independent claim 37 recite “substantially completely transparent or translucent” which renders each of these claims unclear. More specifically, claims 26 and 37 each recite the term “substantially” which renders these claim unclear. The term "substantially" here in claim 26 and 37 is a relative range term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim with respect to the boundary i.e. unclear as to whether the term “substantially” refers herein to a value of +/-0.25% of the defined measure; or the term “substantially” refers herein to a value of +/-0.10% of the defined measure or some other value or percentage. Additionally, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree/range, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 26 recites “the one or more airlocks disposed on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, a broad yet reasonable interpretation of “the one or more airlocks disposed on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls” would encompass the interpretation -- the one …airlocks disposed on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls—in which case the lack of clarity rises as how any access is provided to the enclosure in this arrangement in light of a specification which is silent as to such as airlock arrangement and configuration.
Each of independent claim 26 and independent claim 37 recite “substantially completely transparent or translucent” which renders each of these claims unclear. More specifically, the relative term “substantially” conflicts with the absolute term “completely” and it is unclear as to whether “substantially” qualifies the attribute “transparent or translucent” or whether “completely” qualifies the attribute “transparent or translucent”.
Claim 37 “where one or more of the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to “one or more” qualifies which proceeding elements i.e. [1] does “one or more” just apply to two parallel end-walls or [2] does “one or more” apply to [2a] one of two parallel end-walls or [2b] the two parallel sidewalls or [2c] the at least one roof wall. Here, the limitation is being interpreted as requiring only one of [2a] or [2b] or [2c] be substantially completely transparent or translucent.
Dependent claims 27-26 and 38-46 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 27-26 and 38-46 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based in their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 26, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 43, 45 under examination are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/975,542 (reference copending application claims dated 12/10/2024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims merely recite the same device or essentially the same device as claimed in the reference copending application in claims 4, 7, 9, 11-13, 18. Furthermore, although the claims being examined are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 4, 7, 9, 11-13, 18 of copending Application No. 18/975,542 are a species of and thus, anticipate the more generic or broader claims now pending. More specifically, examined claim 26 is substantially identical to claim 4, examined claim 31 is substantially identical to claim 7, examined claim 33 is substantially identical to claim 9, examined claim 34 is substantially identical to claim 11, examined claim 37 is substantially identical to claim 12, examined claim 43 is substantially identical to claim 18, examined claim 45 is substantially identical to claim 12.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of at least instant application specification para. [0047], [0061], [0069], [0089], [0091], [0096].
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 37-39, 41, 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ellen; Thomas D. (Pub. No.: US 20060020159 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Ellen”).
As per independent Claim 37, Ellen discloses an isolation room system (Ellen in at least abstract, fig. 1, 2A, 4-5, 10-17, abstract, [0010-0014], [0016], [0052-0054], [0057], [0069-0071], [0073-0086], [0088-0089] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Ellen in at least [0010], [0053] discloses an isolation enclosure) comprising:
a rigid architecture (Ellen in fig. 1, 2A, 4-5, 10, [0010], [0053-0054], [0070], 110/410. See at least [0070] “enclosure 400 includes a canopy 402 mounted on a frame 410”);
a plurality of walls supported by the rigid architecture that include two end-walls, two sidewalls, at least one roof wall and a floor wall (Ellen in fig. 1, 2A, fig. 10, [0010], [0054], [0070], 102/402. See at least Ellen [0010] “a canopy connectable to the frame and defining an isolation chamber sealed with respect to the ambient atmosphere”; [0054] “canopy 102 can be secured in place on or over the frame 110 by zippers…velcro and the like”; [0070] “enclosure 400 includes a canopy 402 mounted on a frame 410”), the plurality of walls defining:
a chamber defined at least in part by the two end-walls, the two sidewalls, the at least one roof wall and the floor wall, where one or more of the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent and allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system and at least one door disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls (Here, the limitation “where one or more of the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent” would also encompass the limitation where at least portions of one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls or the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent. Additionally, the limitation “allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system” is being interpreted as functional limitation. Ellen in fig. 1, 10-11, [0010], [0070] for example discloses a chamber 405 defined at least in part by the two end-walls, the two sidewalls, the at least one roof wall and the floor wall, where at least portions 406 of one of the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, or the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent capable of allowing visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from sides of the isolation room system and at least one door disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls. see at least Ellen [0010] “isolation chamber extends over the frame of the bed and is sufficiently large to allow a person located within the isolation chamber to be supported on the bed and to move freely within the isolation chamber”; [0070] “canopy and frame define at least one isolation chamber 405 for enclosing and confining a patient to a predefined area… canopy 402 defines …a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”); and
an air filtration system coupled to at least one of the plurality of walls(Ellen in at least fig. 10, fig. 17, [0010], [0070], [0078], [0085] for example discloses an air filtration system/environmental control device coupled to at least one of the plurality of walls. See at least Ellen [0010] “An environmental control device is connectable in fluid communication with the isolation chamber and includes (i) a filter adapted to at least one of filter air entering and filter air exiting the isolation chamber, and (ii) a pump adapted to at least one of pump air into the isolation chamber to increase the pressure within the isolation chamber relative to the ambient atmosphere, and pump air out of the isolation chamber to decrease the pressure within the isolation chamber relative to the ambient atmosphere”; [0070] “An environmental control unit 409 is mounted on the exterior of the canopy 402 and coupled in fluid communication with the interior chamber 405 to control the flow of air into and out of the chamber and to otherwise control the environmental conditions within the chamber”; [0078] “environmental control system 509 preferably includes at least one air pump, a HEPA or other suitable filtration system, and one or more air-ingress and air-egress ports connected in fluid communication with the isolation chamber 505 and airlock chamber 507.”).
As per dependent Claim 38, Ellen further discloses isolation room system wherein the rigid architecture is defined by a plurality of metal poles(Ellen in at least fig. 2A, [0053] for example discloses rigid architecture is defined by a plurality of metal poles 118 . see Ellen [0053] “frame 110 can be fabricated from a variety of materials now known and later developed such as steel, PVC pipe, aluminum, plastics, carbon fiber composite, other metals and the like”).
As per dependent Claim 39, Ellen further discloses isolation room system wherein the plurality of walls supported by the rigid architecture are defined by transparent or translucent sheets, the plurality of walls defining a polyhedron shape with walls that include two parallel end-walls, two parallel sidewalls, at least one roof wall and a floor wall, the two parallel sidewalls having the same width that is longer than a maximum width of the two parallel end-walls (Examiner notes that the instant application specification as-filed (see at least [0047]) is silent as to the criticality of the polyhedron shape. Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070] for example discloses the plurality of walls supported by the rigid architecture/metal frame are defined by transparent or translucent sheets, the plurality of walls defining a polyhedron shape with walls that include two parallel end-walls, two parallel sidewalls, at least one roof wall and a floor wall, the two parallel sidewalls dimensioned to house a patient within. See at least Ellen [0070] “the canopy 402 defines an isolation chamber 405 that is sealed with respect to the exterior of the canopy to quarantine or isolate the patient located within the canopy…the canopy 402 defines a plurality of glove ports 402a to allow a physician, other care giver or individual access to the patient and/or isolation chamber 405 of the canopy, and a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”).
As per dependent Claim 41, Ellen further discloses isolation room system further comprising one or more airlocks that comprise an enclosure that defines an airlock cavity, with a pair of doors that respectively provide access to the airlock cavity via the outside and inside of the isolation room system (Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070], [0076], [0089] for example discloses one or more airlocks 402c/507 that comprise an enclosure that defines an airlock cavity, with a pair of doors that respectively provide access to the airlock cavity via the outside and inside of the isolation room system. See at least Ellen [0070] “quarantine canopy 402 includes one or more ports or air locks 402c extending through an exterior wall thereof for the passage of food, medicine, waste and/or other matter therethrough. Such ports may take the form of any of numerous different sterile transfer ports or like devices that are currently known”; [0076] “airlock chamber 507 may be provided with one or more ingress/egress openings 507a… ingress/egress openings 507a of the airlock chamber 507, similar to the access panels 505b of the isolation chamber 505, may be selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed, and may include decontamination means (not shown) to enable a person to safely enter and/or exit the airlock chamber 507.”).
As per dependent Claim 43, Ellen further discloses isolation room system further comprising one or more pass-throughs disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls that are configured to allow various elements to extend through the at least one of the two sidewalls and into the chamber, the various elements including one or more of an IV line, a ventilator tube, a monitor line, an oxygen line, a catheter line, a communication line, and a power line (Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070], [0074-0075] for example discloses one or more pass-throughs represented by Ellen 402B,402A, 402C/505B,505C disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls that are configured to allow various elements to extend through the at least one of the two sidewalls and into the chamber, the various elements including one or more of an IV line, a ventilator tube, a monitor line, an oxygen line, a catheter line, a communication line, and a power line. See at least Ellen [0070] “quarantine canopy 402 is provided with one or more quick disconnect couplings 402b for the administration of IV lines and/or the like from outside the quarantine canopy 402… canopy 402 includes one or more ports or air locks 402c extending through an exterior wall thereof for the passage of food, medicine, waste and/or other matter therethrough. Such ports may take the form of any of numerous different sterile transfer ports or like devices that are currently known”; [0074] “isolation chamber 505 is further provided with one or more access panels 505b … selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed”; [0075] “isolation chamber 505 also includes one or more access glove ports 505c…access glove ports 505c may be formed through the access panels 505b, as shown, or otherwise may extend through an exterior wall defining the isolation chamber 505. The access glove ports 505c also may be provided with suitable decontamination means as appropriate for different applications.”).
As per dependent Claim 44, Ellen further discloses isolation room system further comprising at least one door disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls, the at least one door defined by a seal in a portion of the at least one of the plurality of walls, where opening the seal provides for opening the door and closing the seal provides for closing the door (Ellen in at least fig. 13, [0082], [0085], [0086], [0089] for example discloses at least one door 605b disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls, the at least one door defined by a seal in a portion of the at least one of the plurality of walls since physician after closing the respective access door 605b in the airlock canopy 602b, is able to seal the airlock with respect to the ambient atmosphere, where opening the seal provides for opening the door and closing the seal provides for closing the door by sealing the airlock with respect to the ambient atmosphere, and activates the environmental control device 609 to set the pressure within the airlock chamber to be substantially the same (negative pressure) as that within the isolation chamber. See at least Ellen [0082] “isolation chamber 605 is further provided with one or more access panels 605b suitable to allow direct access to a patient as needed. These access panels 605b may be selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed”; [0085] “environmental control system 609 is selectively configured … for either patient isolation/quarantine or patient protection, thereby maintaining a negative pressure environment … relative to ambient, respectively”; [0086] “Once located within airlock chamber the physician then closes the respective access door 605b in the airlock canopy 602b, seals the airlock with respect to the ambient atmosphere, and activates the environmental control device 609 to set the pressure within the airlock chamber to be substantially the same as that within the isolation chamber”).
As per dependent Claim 45, Ellen further discloses isolation room system wherein the air filtration system coupled to at least one of the plurality of walls comprises a filter and a duct that extends to a fan that generates a negative pressure within the duct, which in turn pulls air from within at least the chamber through the filter(Ellen in at least fig. 10, fig. 17, [0010], [0016], [0050], [0085], [0089] for example discloses the air filtration system/environmental control device as recited. See at least Ellen [0010] “environmental control device is connectable in fluid communication with the isolation chamber and includes (i) a filter adapted to at least one of filter air entering and filter air exiting the isolation chamber, and (ii) a pump adapted to at least one of pump air into the isolation chamber to increase the pressure within the isolation chamber relative to the ambient atmosphere, and pump air out of the isolation chamber to decrease the pressure within the isolation chamber relative to the ambient atmosphere”; [0085] “environmental control system 609… includes at least one air pump 612, a HEPA or other suitable filtration system 614, …The environmental control system 609 is selectively configured by manipulation of the dampers or valves 618 for either patient isolation/quarantine or patient protection, thereby maintaining a negative pressure environment”).
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 of this title, 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.
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 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen in view of Lee Jae Won (Pub. English Translation of KR101668378B1, hereinafter referred to as “Lee-NPL”).
As per dependent Claim 40, Ellen discloses isolation room system of claim 37 (see claim 27)
Ellen does not explicitly disclose one or more lean-in glove panel interfaces that comprise a front panel having a first glove and second glove extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Lee-NPL discloses an isolation room system (Lee-NPL in at least fig. 1-2, 4, 6, 7-8, [0001], [0015-0017], [0021], [0024-0025], [0027], [0029-0030], [0032-0033], [0043], [0045], [0048], [0055], [0059], [0063], [0066], [0068-0069], [0078], [0081], [0086-0087], [0097-0102], [0104] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Lee-NPL in at least fig. 1, [0015], [0043], [0104] for example discloses for example discloses isolation room system/isolation room 200. See at least Lee-NPL [0043] “an isolation room (200) in which air flow such as air is uniformly circulated and negative … pressure is maintained”) comprising one or more lean-in glove panel interfaces that comprise a front panel having a first glove and second glove extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to (Lee-NPL, fig. 7-8, [0015], [0017], [0021], [0032], [0078], [0081-0101], [0104] for example discloses one or more lean-in glove panel interfaces 430 that comprise a front panel 434, 435 having a first and second glove 435a extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge 403 that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to. See at least Lee-NPL [0032] “a tilting door that rotates to be inclined … so that when a doctor manages or treats a patient, the upper transparent window of the glove gate and the tilting door can be maintained in a state of being tilted toward the patient, and as a result, the doctor can easily perform close observation, treatment, and management of the patient without the doctor's head being interfered with by the upper transparent window of the tilting door.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of the isolation room system as taught by Ellen, by further including lean-in glove panel interfaces that comprise a front panel having a and second glove extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to, as taught by Lee-NPL. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage that a doctor, can approach the patient relatively uninterrupted so that the doctor can easily perform close observation, treatment, and management of the patient (Lee-NPL, [0032], [0101]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen in view of Poenisch et al. (Pub. No.: US 20160136024 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Poenisch”).
As per dependent Claim 42, Ellen discloses isolation room system of claim 41 (see claim 41)
Ellen does not explicitly disclose a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Poenisch discloses isolation room system (Poenisch in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, [0006-0018], [0026], [0028-0033], [0039-0040], [0059-0058], [0061-0062], [0066] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Poenisch in at least fig. 1, 3-5, [0006], [0011] for example discloses isolation room system. See Poenisch [0006] “box large enough to hold said patient and which provides sufficient separation between said patient and caregivers to prevent transfer of germs from said patient to caregivers”)
wherein the one or more airlocks comprise a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber(Poenisch in at least fig. 1, 3-5, [0009], [0050-0055], [0057] for example discloses the one or more airlocks comprise a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber. See at least Poenisch [0055] “facilitate waste disposal, a large receptacle box can be provided inside said box or in space contiguous to said box (see below, adjacent Lounge Space Room, (FIG. 3,5; T) with a hermetically sealed lid to place items needing to be disposed of. Said receptacle box would have a large tubing (FIG. 3,5; G) through which a powerful suction can suck out of said receptacle box disposal items placed in said receptacle box. Such suction technology … is well-known”; [0057] “samples of … urine and other bodily excretions can be removed from said box after tubes holding such samples …passed out through an airlock chamber portal means. Said portal means (FIG. 1,3,5; I) uses an intermediary “airlock” chamber attached to said box …with an air-tight door from said chamber to said box interior and a second air-tight door from said chamber to the environment outside said box.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify airlock of the isolation room system as taught by Ellen, by further including a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber, as taught by Poenisch. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of facilitating removal of waste products of said patient and facilitating caregiving without allowing germs to escape undestroyed into environment outside said containment box (Poenisch, [0009]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen in view of Cazalis; Jean-Pierre (Pat. No.: US 3802416 A, hereinafter referred to as “Cazalis”).
As per dependent Claim 46, Ellen discloses isolation room system of claim 37 (see claim 37).
Ellen does not explicitly disclose the plurality of walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion and one or more arm portions.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Cazalis discloses isolation room system (Cazalis in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 7, col. 1 line 29-col. 3 line 44, col. 4 lines 8-col. 5 line 50, col. 6 lines 12-line 67 for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Cazalis in at least fig. 5, col. 1 lines 8-12, col. 1 lines 35-50, col. 5 lines 54-65 for example discloses isolation room system. See at least Cazalis col. 5 lines 54-65 “treatment enclosure”),
wherein the plurality of walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion and one or more arm portions(Cazalis in at least fig. 5, col.2 line 23-col. 3 line 44, col. 5 lines 3-50, col. 6 lines 12-22 for example discloses the plurality of walls further define a hug suit interface/ suit 20 comprising a gown body having a head portion and one or more arm portions. See at least col. 6 lines 12-22 “Opening 19 of panel 25… supports a tight suit 20 which is part of wall 1 and is kept in place in at rest position by rope 23 hooked onto the ceiling 24 of the rigid structure 7. This suit can be of any known type… a pipe system 36 feeds air to suit 20.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface of the isolation room system as taught by Ellen, by further including plurality of walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion and one or more arm portions, as taught by Cazalis. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of providing an isolation system with a rapid means of intervention for emergency cases when the doctor decides that the need of intervention is important while still avoiding the introduction of a contaminated volume of air into the enclosure (Cazalis, col. 3 20-44).
Claims 26-28, 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen in view of Lee-NPL and further in view of Karle, David A. (Pub. No.: US 20030133834 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Karle”).
As per independent Claim 26, Ellen discloses an isolation room system (Ellen in at least abstract, fig. 1, 2A, 4-5, 10-17, abstract, [0010-0014], [0016], [0052-0054], [0057], [0069-0071], [0073-0086], [0088-0089] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Ellen in at least [0010], [0053] discloses an isolation enclosure) comprising:
a rigid collapsible architecture defined by a plurality of metal poles (Ellen in fig. 1, 2A, 4-5, 10, [0010], [0053-0054], [0070], a rigid collapsible architecture 110/410 defined by a plurality of metal poles 118. See at least [0070] “enclosure 400 includes a canopy 402 mounted on a frame 410”; see Ellen [0053] “frame 110 can be fabricated from a variety of materials now known and later developed such as steel, PVC pipe, aluminum, plastics, carbon fiber composite, other metals and the like”);
a plurality of flexible walls supported by the rigid collapsible architecture and defined by transparent or translucent flexible sheets (Ellen in fig. 1, 2A, fig. 10, [0010], [0054], [0070], 102/402. See at least Ellen [0070] “the canopy 402 defines a plurality of glove ports 402a to allow a physician, other care giver or individual access to the patient and/or isolation chamber 405 of the canopy, and a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”), the plurality of flexible walls defining a polyhedron shape with walls that include two parallel end-walls, two parallel sidewalls, at least one roof wall and a floor wall, the two parallel sidewalls having the same width that is longer than a maximum width of the two parallel end-walls (Examiner notes that the instant application specification as-filed (see at least [0047]) is silent as to the criticality of the polyhedron shape. Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070] for example discloses plurality of flexible walls defining a polyhedron shape with walls that include two parallel end-walls, two parallel sidewalls, at least one roof wall and a floor wall, the two parallel sidewalls dimensioned to enclose a patient within. See at least Ellen [0070] “the canopy 402 defines an isolation chamber 405 that is sealed with respect to the exterior of the canopy to quarantine or isolate the patient located within the canopy…the canopy 402 defines a plurality of glove ports 402a to allow a physician, other care giver or individual access to the patient and/or isolation chamber 405 of the canopy, and a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”), at least a parallel sidewall portion being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from sides of the isolation room system (Ellen in at least fig. 10, [0070] discloses at least a parallel sidewall portions 406 being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system. See at least Ellen fig. [0070] “the canopy 402 defines …a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”), the plurality of flexible walls defining:
a chamber defined at least in part by the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, the at least one roof wall and the floor wall (Ellen in fig. 1, 10-11, [0010], [0070] for example discloses chamber 405 defined at least in part by the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, the at least one roof wall and the floor wall. see at least Ellen [0010] “isolation chamber extends over the frame of the bed and is sufficiently large to allow a person located within the isolation chamber to be supported on the bed and to move freely within the isolation chamber”; [0070] “canopy and frame define at least one isolation chamber 405 for enclosing and confining a patient to a predefined area”),
one or more airlocks that comprise an enclosure that defines an airlock cavity, with a pair of doors that respectively provide access to the airlock cavity via the outside and inside of the isolation room system, the one or more airlocks disposed on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls or on at least one of the two parallel end-walls (Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070], [0089] for example discloses one or more airlocks/one or more ports or air locks 402c that comprise an enclosure that defines an airlock cavity, with a pair of doors/access structures that respectively provide access to the airlock cavity via the outside and inside of the isolation room system, the one or more airlocks 402 c disposed on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls or on at least one of the two parallel end-walls. See at least [0070] “quarantine canopy 402 includes one or more ports or air locks 402c extending through an exterior wall thereof for the passage of food, medicine, waste and/or other matter therethrough. Such ports may take the form of any of numerous different sterile transfer ports or like devices that are currently known”),
one or more pass-throughs disposed in at least one of the two parallel sidewalls or on at least one of the two parallel end-walls that are configured to allow various elements to extend through the at least one of the two parallel sidewalls and into the chamber, the various elements including one or more of an IV line, a ventilator tube, a monitor line, an oxygen line, a catheter line, a communication line, and a power line (Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070], [0074-0075] for example discloses one or more pass-throughs represented by Ellen 402B,402A, 402C/505B,505C disposed in at least one of the two parallel sidewalls or on at least one of the two parallel end-walls that are configured to allow various elements to extend through the at least one of the two parallel sidewalls and into the chamber, the various elements including one or more of an IV line, a ventilator tube, a monitor line, an oxygen line, a catheter line, a communication line, and a power line. See at least Ellen [0070] “quarantine canopy 402 is provided with one or more quick disconnect couplings 402b for the administration of IV lines and/or the like from outside the quarantine canopy 402… canopy 402 includes one or more ports or air locks 402c extending through an exterior wall thereof for the passage of food, medicine, waste and/or other matter therethrough. Such ports may take the form of any of numerous different sterile transfer ports or like devices that are currently known”; [0074] “isolation chamber 505 is further provided with one or more access panels 505b … selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed”; [0075] “isolation chamber 505 also includes one or more access glove ports 505c…access glove ports 505c may be formed through the access panels 505b, as shown, or otherwise may extend through an exterior wall defining the isolation chamber 505. The access glove ports 505c also may be provided with suitable decontamination means as appropriate for different applications.”), and
at least one door disposed in at least one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls (Ellen in at least fig. 13, [0082], [0085], [0086], [0089] for example discloses at least one door 605b disposed in at least one of the plurality of walls. See at least Ellen [0082] “isolation chamber 605 is further provided with one or more access panels 605b suitable to allow direct access to a patient as needed. These access panels 605b may be selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed”; [0085] “environmental control system 609 is selectively configured … for either patient isolation/quarantine or patient protection, thereby maintaining a negative pressure environment … relative to ambient, respectively”; [0086] “Once located within airlock chamber the physician then closes the respective access door 605b in the airlock canopy 602b, seals the airlock with respect to the ambient atmosphere, and activates the environmental control device 609 to set the pressure within the airlock chamber to be substantially the same as that within the isolation chamber”),
an air filtration system coupled to at least one of the two parallel end-walls, the air filtration system comprising a filter disposed within the at least one of the two parallel end-walls and further comprising a duct that extends to a fan that generates a negative pressure within the duct, which in turn pulls air from within at least the chamber through the filter (Ellen in at least fig. 10, fig. 17, [0010], [0070], [0078], [0085] for example discloses an air filtration system/environmental control device coupled to at least one of the two parallel end-walls, the air filtration system comprising a filter/HEPA disposed within the at least one of the two parallel end-walls and further comprising a duct 621 that extends to a fan that generates a negative pressure within the duct, which in turn pulls air from within at least the chamber 605 through the filter. See at least Ellen [0010] “An environmental control device is connectable in fluid communication with the isolation chamber and includes (i) a filter adapted to at least one of filter air entering and filter air exiting the isolation chamber, and (ii) a pump adapted to at least one of pump air into the isolation chamber to increase the pressure within the isolation chamber relative to the ambient atmosphere, and pump air out of the isolation chamber to decrease the pressure within the isolation chamber relative to the ambient atmosphere”; [0070] “An environmental control unit 409 is mounted on the exterior of the canopy 402 and coupled in fluid communication with the interior chamber 405 to control the flow of air into and out of the chamber and to otherwise control the environmental conditions within the chamber”; [0078] “environmental control system 509 preferably includes at least one air pump, a HEPA or other suitable filtration system, and one or more air-ingress and air-egress ports connected in fluid communication with the isolation chamber 505 and airlock chamber 507.”);
Ellen does not explicitly disclose lean-in glove panel interfaces, door defined by a C-shaped seal, intake filters coupled to the roof wall and the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent features.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Lee-NPL discloses isolation room system (Lee-NPL in at least fig. 1-2, 4, 6, 7-8, [0001], [0015-0017], [0021], [0024-0025], [0027], [0029-0030], [0032-0033], [0043], [0045], [0048], [0055], [0059], [0063], [0066], [0068-0069], [0078], [0081], [0086-0087], [0097-0102], [0104] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Lee-NPL in at least fig. 1, [0015], [0043], [0104] for example discloses for example discloses isolation room system/isolation room 200. See at least Lee-NPL [0043] “an isolation room (200) in which air flow such as air is uniformly circulated and negative … pressure is maintained”), comprising:
two parallel end-walls being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from sides of the isolation room system (Lee-NPL in at least fig. 1, 4, 8, [0048], [0075], [0086], [0104] discloses two parallel end-walls 111, 412, 434 being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from sides of the isolation room system. See at least Lee-NPL [0048] “roller screen (110) includes a transparent sheet (111) made of a transparent soft or hard material”; [0075] “the foldable side door (400) is configured as a lower door (410), and includes a lower door frame (411) having a rectangular frame… a lower transparent window (412) coupled to the inner side of the lower door frame”; [0086] “the tilting door (430) includes an upper transparent window (434) coupled to the inside of the tilting door frame (431).”.)
one or more lean-in glove panel interfaces that comprise a front panel having a and second glove extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to (Lee-NPL, fig. 7-8, [0015], [0017], [0021], [0032], [0078], [0081-0101], [0104] for example discloses one or more lean-in glove panel interfaces 430 that comprise a front panel 434, 435 having a first and second glove 435a extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge 403 that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to. See at least Lee-NPL [0032] “a tilting door that rotates to be inclined … so that when a doctor manages or treats a patient, the upper transparent window of the glove gate and the tilting door can be maintained in a state of being tilted toward the patient, and as a result, the doctor can easily perform close observation, treatment, and management of the patient without the doctor's head being interfered with by the upper transparent window of the tilting door.),
one or more intake filters coupled to the roof wall that allow for air intake into the chamber (Lee-NPL in at least fig. 2-3, [0017], [0027], [0055], [0059], [0093], [0104] for example discloses one or more intake filters 210 coupled to the roof wall that allow for air intake into the chamber. See at least Lee-NPL [0093] “air flowing into the blower (310) passes through the ceiling duct section (150) and the antibacterial filter section (210) and flows into the internal space of the isolation room (200).").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of the isolation room system as taught by Ellen, by further including one or more lean-in glove panel interfaces that comprise a front panel having a and second glove extending into the chamber, the front panel rotatably coupled to a wall via a hinge that allows the front panel to rotate toward and away from a wall that the front panel is rotatably coupled to, as taught by Lee-NPL. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage that a doctor, can approach the patient relatively uninterrupted so that the doctor can easily perform close observation, treatment, and management of the patient (Lee-NPL, [0032], [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify intake filets used in the isolation room system as taught by Ellen, such that one or more intake filters is coupled to the roof wall that allow for air intake into the chamber, as taught by Lee-NPL. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of facilitating air circulation that can be performed uniformly (Lee-NPL, [0027] ).
The combination of Ellen and Lee-NPL as a whole does not explicitly disclose door defined by a C-shaped seal and the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent feature.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Karle discloses isolation room system (Karle in at least abstract, fig. 1, [0019], [0021-0025], [0038-0040], [0045-0046] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Karle in at least fig. 1, [0019], [0045] for example discloses isolation room system 10. See at last Karle [0019] “enclosure assembly 10 is also suited to isolating a patient having a communicable disease or who is otherwise contaminated or for protecting people from an exterior hazardous environment”;[0045] “enclosure 10, 10', 10" has a variety of other applications, including isolation of potentially contaminated equipment and patients. For such applications, the enclosure may be maintained under a slight negative pressure using a pump or other suitable suction equipment (not shown). Air that is withdrawn from the enclosure through valve 115 is-passed through a filter, such as a HEPA filter (not shown), and any other treatment equipment needed to remove the contamination from the air”), comprising:
two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system (Karle in abstract, fig. 1, [0023] discloses the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system. See at least Karle [0023] “enclosure 14 is preferably formed from a flexible transparent sheet material, which is airtight, such as vinyl, and is sized to fit in the space provided by the framework 12…enclosure 14 shown in FIG. 1 is formed from panels, specifically, four side panels 30, a roof panel 32, and a floor panel 34. The panels 30, 32, 34 are sealed together at their edges to define an enclosed space 36”.)
at least one door disposed in at least one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls, the at least one door defined by a C-shaped seal in a portion of the at least one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel end- walls, where opening the seal provides for opening the door and closing the seal provides for closing the door (Karle in at least fig. 1, [0040], [0045] for example discloses at least one door disposed in at least one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls, the at least one door defined by a C-shaped zipper seal 124 in a portion of the at least one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel end- walls, where opening the seal provides for opening the door and closing the seal provides for closing the door. See at least Karle [0040] “access to the enclosure 14' is provided by a closure member, preferably a zipper or zippers 120, which provide a resealable opening 121 into the enclosure. The zipper 120 is preferably of the type which allows an airtight or substantially airtight seal to be maintained, such as a rail seal type zipper. A suitable zipper is YKK, Inc.'s model No. 8RS-PVC40 (YKK, Inc., Springfield, Pa.). … in FIG. 1, a single zipper 124 provides three sides of a door.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify door seal used in the isolation room system of Ellen, as modified with Lee-NPL, such that at least one door is defined by a C-shaped seal in a portion of the at least one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel end- walls, where opening the seal provides for opening the door and closing the seal provides for closing the door as disclosed by Karle. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of maintain an airtight or substantially airtight reversible seal (Karle [0040]).
As per dependent Claim 27, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system wherein the rigid collapsible architecture defined by the plurality of metal poles comprises: four parallel vertical poles that define corners of the isolation room system and contact the ground, a pair of parallel sidewall beams extending between respective pairs of the four parallel vertical poles that define the corners of the isolation room system, parallel sidewall beams extending perpendicular to the four parallel vertical poles that define the corners of the isolation room system, and a pair of parallel end-wall beams extending between respective pairs of the four parallel vertical poles that define the corners of the isolation room system (Ellen in at least fig. 1, 2A, 4-5, 10-11, [0010], [0053-0054], [0057-0060], [0065] [0070]. Also see Karle in fig. 1, [0020-0022]).
As per dependent Claim 28, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system wherein the chamber has a volume of 410-370 cubic feet and is configured to hold a bed for an isolated patient within the chamber (Ellen in fig. 1, fig. 10, [0057], [0088-0089] for example discloses the chamber has a volume configured to hold a bed for an isolated patient within the chamber which makes recited subject-matter obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive as a matter of attempt to change the size/proportion to meet patient anatomy (see MPEP 2144.04). See at least Ellen [0057] “enclosure 100, in particular the rectangle formed by the base portion 113 and eave portion 111, is well suited to adaptation to beds of any size”; [0088] “enclosures are dimensioned to fit through doorways and hallways, such as conventional doorways and hallways encountered in hospitals”).
As per dependent Claim 30, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system comprising a plurality of airlocks that comprise an enclosure that defines an airlock cavity, with a pair of doors that respectively provide access to the airlock cavity via the outside and inside of the isolation room system, the plurality of airlocks disposed respectively on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls (Ellen in at least fig. 10-11, [0070], [0076], [0089] for example discloses a plurality of airlocks 402c, 507 that comprise an enclosure that defines an airlock cavity, with a pair of doors that respectively provide access to the airlock cavity via the outside and inside of the isolation room system, with the plurality of airlocks disposed respectively on at least both of the two parallel sidewalls being obvious to one of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive as a matter of duplication or rearrangement of prior art disclosed parts to meet treatment needs of the patient within the enclosure(see MPEP 2144.04). See at least Ellen [0070] “quarantine canopy 402 includes one or more ports or air locks 402c extending through an exterior wall thereof for the passage of food, medicine, waste and/or other matter therethrough. Such ports may take the form of any of numerous different sterile transfer ports or like devices that are currently known”; [0076] “airlock chamber 507 may be provided with one or more ingress/egress openings 507a… ingress/egress openings 507a of the airlock chamber 507, similar to the access panels 505b of the isolation chamber 505, may be selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed, and may include decontamination means (not shown) to enable a person to safely enter and/or exit the airlock chamber 507.” ).
As per dependent Claim 31, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system further comprising an elongated interface unit disposed on at least one of the two parallel sidewalls and configured for one or more medical devices including a stethoscope to be inserted therein to interface with an isolated patient within the chamber and configured and located for the one or more medical devices including a stethoscope to be manipulated by a user of at least one of plurality of lean-in glove panel interfaces, the elongated interface unit defined by a material in a manner that the one or more medical devices including a stethoscope are arranged to operate through the material of the elongated interface unit (Ellen in at least fig. 10, [0070] discloses such as elongated interface unit 402b, 402c while Lee-NPL in fig. 8, [0015], [0017], [0021], [0032], [0078], [0081-0101], [0104] for example discloses an interface unit 320 disposed on at least one of the two parallel sidewalls and configured for one or more medical devices which would encompass medical devices such as a stethoscope to be inserted therein to interface with an isolated patient within the chamber and configured and located for the one or more medical devices (which would encompass medical devices such as a stethoscope) to be manipulated by a user (see fig. 8) of at least one of plurality of lean-in glove panel interfaces 430, the interface unit defined by a material in a manner that the one or more medical devices (which would encompasses medical devices such as a stethoscope) are arranged to operate through the material of the interface unit. Thus, combination of applied art as a whole discloses subject-matter as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants. See at least Ellen [0070] “quarantine canopy 402 is provided with one or more quick disconnect couplings 402b for the administration of IV lines and/or the like from outside the quarantine canopy 402. In addition, the quarantine canopy 402 includes one or more ports or air locks 402c extending through an exterior wall thereof for the passage of food, medicine, waste and/or other matter therethrough. Such ports may take the form of any of numerous different sterile transfer ports or like devices that are currently known, or that later become known for performing the function of the ports 402c. Such sterile transfer ports also include a UV device or other means for sterilizing any matter removed from the isolation chamber therethrough to prevent contamination outside of the chamber. Such sterilizing means may take the form of any of numerous such means that are currently known, or that later become known for performing this function.”; Lee-NPL [0102] “the user can perform the corresponding treatment (e.g., palpation, etc.) by inserting his/her hand through the glove gate (435) of the upper transparent window (434) and the glove (435a) provided therein. Here, the globe (435a) is formed close to the pass box (320) to open and close the second door (322), or to allow items inside the isolation room (200) to be placed inside the pass box (320).”).
As per dependent Claim 32, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system comprising: an end-wall door disposed in at least one of the two parallel end-walls, the end-wall door defined by a C-shaped end-wall seal in a portion of at the at least one of the two parallel end- walls where opening the end-wall seal provides for opening the end-wall door and closing the end-wall seal provides for closing the end-wall door (Ellen in at least fig. 1, [0061] for example discloses an end-wall door 180 disposed in at least one of the two parallel end-walls while Karle in at least fig. 1, [0040], [0045] for example discloses door defined by a C-shaped zipper seal 124 in a portion of at the at least one of the two walls where opening the wall seal provides for opening the wall door and closing the wall seal provides for closing the wall door, and thus, the combination of applied art as a whole discloses the subject-matter as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants. See at least [0061] “the canopy 102 may be secured in place about the frame 110 and the patient may enter the restraining area through an opening 180 in the canopy 102 ”), and a sidewall door disposed in at least one of the two parallel sidewalls, the sidewall door defined by a C-shaped sidewall seal in a portion of at the at least one of the two parallel sidewalls where opening the sidewall seal provides for opening the sidewall door and closing the sidewall seal provides for closing the sidewall door(Ellen in at least fig. 11, [0076] for example discloses a sidewall door 507 A disposed in at least one of the two parallel sidewalls while Karle in at least fig. 1, [0040], [0045] for example discloses door defined by a C-shaped zipper seal 124 in a portion of at the at least one of the two walls where opening the wall seal provides for opening the wall door and closing the wall seal provides for closing the wall door, and thus, the combination of applied art as a whole discloses the subject-matter as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants. See at least Ellen [0076] “airlock chamber 507 may be provided with one or more ingress/egress openings 507a… ingress/egress openings 507a of the airlock chamber 507…may be selectively opened and/or hermetically closed as needed”. See at least Karle [0040] “access to the enclosure 14' is provided by a closure member, preferably a zipper or zippers 120, which provide a resealable opening 121 into the enclosure. The zipper 120 is preferably of the type which allows an airtight or substantially airtight seal to be maintained, such as a rail seal type zipper. A suitable zipper is YKK, Inc.'s model No. 8RS-PVC40 (YKK, Inc., Springfield, Pa.). … in FIG. 1, a single zipper 124 provides three sides of a door.”).
As per dependent Claim 33, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system wherein the air filtration system generates at least 15 air-exchanges-per-hour of at least the volume of the chamber and generates a negative pressure within the chamber of less than or equal to -2.5 Pascals (Examiner notes that the Applicant’s in at least instant application as-filed [0061], [0089] admit this subject-matter as “CDC guidelines for surgical procedure and delivery rooms” i.e. well-known).
As per dependent Claim 34, the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole further discloses isolation room system wherein the isolation room system is collapsible and mobile and configured to: be brought into a room via a standard sized door in a collapsed and mobile configuration, and be erected within the room to an erected size where the erected isolation room system is not removable through the standard sized door because of the erected size being too large to fit through the standard sized door, wherein the standard sized door has a height of less than or equal to 8'0" and a width of less than or equal to 3'6" (Ellen in at least fig. 4-5, fig. 10, fig. 15, [0068], [0070], [0088]. See at least Ellen [0068] “canopies are usable with any of numerous different types of frames that are currently known, or that later become known… canopies may be used with … frames that collapse”; [0070] “ frame 410 may be the same as the collapsible frame 110 ”; [0088] “enclosures are dimensioned to fit through doorways and hallways, such as conventional doorways and hallways encountered in hospitals. Thus, the enclosures are uniquely configured to transport an isolated patient throughout the different locations within, for example, a hospital, without having to remove the patient from the isolation chamber.”).
Claims 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen in view of Lee-NPL and further in view of Karle and further in view of Cazalis.
As per dependent Claim 29, combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole discloses isolation room system of claim 26 (see claim 26).
The combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole does not explicitly disclose a plurality of lean-in glove panel interfaces disposed respectively on: at least one of the two parallel sidewalls, and at least one of the two parallel end-walls.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Cazalis discloses isolation room system (Cazalis in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 7, col. 1 line 29-col. 3 line 44, col. 4 lines 8-col. 5 line 50, col. 6 lines 12-line 67 for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Cazalis in at least fig. 5, col. 1 lines 8-12, col. 1 lines 35-50, col. 5 lines 54-65 for example discloses isolation room system. See at least Cazalis col. 5 lines 54-65 “treatment enclosure”),
a plurality of lean-in glove panel interfaces disposed respectively on: at least one of the two parallel sidewalls, and at least one of the two parallel end-walls (Cazalis in at least fig. 1-5, col.2 line 23-col. 3 line 44, col. 4 lines 19-40, col. 5 lines 3-50, col. 6 lines 12-22 for example discloses a plurality of lean-in glove panel/half suit 9, 13, 20 interfaces disposed respectively on: at least one of the two parallel sidewalls, and at least one of the two parallel end-walls. See at least Cazalis col. 5 lines 3-24 “Bed 2 is located in the middle of the enclosure and on either lateral side of the bed 2 there is … shown unfolded in working position with an operator in the half suit 9…In its unfolded position the movable panel 10 is approximately at the level of the bed 2 of the patient and consequently permits an easy access to the head and the bust by the operator in suit 13”; col. 5 lines 40-49 “ Suit 20, which is in the at rest position, is held by rope 23 attached at 24 to the upper part of the rigid structure 7.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface of the isolation room system of Ellen, as modified with Lee-NPL and Karle, by further including a plurality of lean-in glove panel interfaces disposed respectively on: at least one of the two parallel sidewalls, and at least one of the two parallel end-walls Cazalis. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of deriving a complete yet balanced patient treatment enclosure system since it permits simultaneously the intervention of three operators around the patient (Cazalis, col. 4 lines 19-40).
As per dependent Claim 35, combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole discloses isolation room system of claim 26 (see claim 26).
The combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole does not explicitly disclose the plurality of flexible walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion, arm portions and a ventilation system comprising a tube that is arranged to provide air to at least the head portion of the gown body.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Cazalis discloses isolation room system (Cazalis in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 7, col. 1 line 29-col. 3 line 44, col. 4 lines 8-col. 5 line 50, col. 6 lines 12-line 67 for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Cazalis in at least fig. 5, col. 1 lines 8-12, col. 1 lines 35-50, col. 5 lines 54-65 for example discloses isolation room system. See at least Cazalis col. 5 lines 54-65 “treatment enclosure”),
wherein the plurality of flexible walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion, arm portions and a ventilation system comprising a tube that is arranged to provide air to at least the head portion of the gown body (Cazalis in at least fig. 5, col.2 line 23-col. 3 line 44, col. 5 lines 3-50, col. 6 lines 12-22 for example discloses the plurality of walls further define a hug suit interface/ suit 20 comprising a gown body having a head portion and one or more arm portions and a ventilation system comprising a tube 36 that is arranged to provide air to at least the head portion of the gown body. See at least col. 6 lines 12-22 “Opening 19 of panel 25… supports a tight suit 20 which is part of wall 1 and is kept in place in at rest position by rope 23 hooked onto the ceiling 24 of the rigid structure 7. This suit can be of any known type… a pipe system 36 feeds air to suit 20.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify user interface of the isolation room system of Ellen, as modified with Lee-NPL and Karle, by further including plurality of flexible walls further define a hug suit interface comprising a gown body having a head portion, arm portions and a ventilation system comprising a tube that can provide air to at least the head portion of the gown body Cazalis. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of providing an isolation system with a rapid means of intervention for emergency cases when the doctor decides that the need of intervention is important while still avoiding the introduction of a contaminated volume of air into the enclosure (Cazalis, col. 3 20-44).
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellen in view of Lee-NPL and further in view of Karle and further in view of Poenisch.
As per dependent Claim 36, combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole discloses isolation room system of claim 26 (see claim 26).
The combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole does not explicitly disclose a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber by the waste container being inserted into the toilet airlock from inside the chamber and removed from the toilet airlock to the outside of the isolation room system.
However, in an analogous isolation room system field of endeavor, Poenisch discloses isolation room system (Poenisch in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, [0006-0018], [0026], [0028-0033], [0039-0040], [0059-0058], [0061-0062], [0066] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Poenisch in at least fig. 1, 3-5, [0006], [0011] for example discloses isolation room system. See Poenisch [0006] “box large enough to hold said patient and which provides sufficient separation between said patient and caregivers to prevent transfer of germs from said patient to caregivers”)
wherein the one or more airlocks comprise a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber by the waste container being inserted into the toilet airlock from inside the chamber and removed from the toilet airlock to the outside of the isolation room system (Poenisch in at least fig. 1, 3-5, [0009], [0050-0055], [0057] for example discloses a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber by the waste container being inserted into the toilet airlock from inside the chamber and removed from the toilet airlock to the outside of the isolation room system. See at least Poenisch [0055] “facilitate waste disposal, a large receptacle box can be provided inside said box or in space contiguous to said box (see below, adjacent Lounge Space Room, (FIG. 3,5; T) with a hermetically sealed lid to place items needing to be disposed of. Said receptacle box would have a large tubing (FIG. 3,5; G) through which a powerful suction can suck out of said receptacle box disposal items placed in said receptacle box. Such suction technology … is well-known”; [0057] “samples of … urine and other bodily excretions can be removed from said box after tubes holding such samples …passed out through an airlock chamber portal means. Said portal means (FIG. 1,3,5; I) uses an intermediary “airlock” chamber attached to said box …with an air-tight door from said chamber to said box interior and a second air-tight door from said chamber to the environment outside said box.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify air locks of the isolation room system of Ellen, as modified with Lee-NPL and Karle, by further including a toilet airlock configured for human waste generated by an isolated patient and contained in a waste container to be removed from the chamber by the waste container being inserted into the toilet airlock from inside the chamber and removed from the toilet airlock to the outside of the isolation room system as disclosed by Poenisch. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of facilitating removal of waste products of said patient and caregiving without allowing said germs to escape undestroyed into environment outside said containment box” (Poenisch, [0009]).
Contingently Allowable Subject-Matter
As per independent claim 21 and dependent claims 24-25, claims 21-25 are objected to for containing minor informalities but would be allowable if these minor informalities are cured.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per independent Claim 21, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious an isolation room system including all the other features, structures, specific arrangement and combination of features and structures in independent Claim 21.
The combination of the features of independent apparatus claim 21 is neither known from, nor rendered obvious by, the available prior art.
Additionally, as per dependent claims 22-25, dependent claim 22-25 would be contingently allowable based on their direct/indirect dependency on respective contingently allowable base claim.
Response to Amendment
According to the Amendment, filed 10/14/2025, the status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 21, 23-24, 26, 31, 34-35, 37, 40 are currently amended;
Claims 1-20 are cancelled; and
Claims 22, 25, 27-30, 32-33, 36, 38-39, 41-46 are previously presented.
The Specification/Drawings has been amended in view of the Amendment, filed 10/14/2025. No new matter was introduced.
By the current amendment, as a result, claims 21-46 are now pending in this application and are being examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections/Objections Not Based On Prior Art presented on Page 15-16 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 10/14/2025
[A]: The Examiner agrees with the Applicant, and in light of the amendments/arguments, withdraws the following non prior art related objections/rejections raised in Office Action dated 05/14/2025: [1] The objection to Specification/Drawings is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments, filed 10/14/2025; [2] The objection to claims is withdrawn in view of the amendment and arguments, filed 10/14/2025; [3] The 35 U.S.C. 112(b), rejections to claims as raised in Office Action dated 05/14/2025 paras. [12], [14] are withdrawn in view of the amendment, filed 10/14/2025.
[B]: The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant, and in light of the amendments/arguments, maintains the following non prior art related objections/rejections raised in Office Action dated 05/14/2025: [1] The 35 U.S.C. 112(b), rejections to claim 26 as raised in Office Action dated 05/14/2025 paras. [13] is maintained in view of the amendment, filed 10/14/2025 as neither the remarks nor amendments cure the noted issue. Please see detailed description of this issue above.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Double Patenting Rejections presented on Page 17 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 10/14/2025 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
Double Patenting:
[i] Claims 26, 31, 33-34, 37-38, 43, and 45 under examination are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/975,542.
[ii] Because the claims of the application at issue may change during the course of prosecution, Applicant respectfully submits that addressing the rejection at this point is premature. Accordingly, because the double patenting rejection is provisional, should the rejection be maintained in a future action, Applicant will address the rejection at a time the claims are indicated as otherwise allowable.
Applicant’s request [i-ii] above for abeyance of non-statutory double patenting is acknowledged. However, in the interest of clarity and thoroughness of the prosecution record, examined claims provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Applications is being reiterated.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections Based On Prior Art presented on Pages 17-18 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 10/14/2025 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
35 U.S.C. § 102/103 Rejection of the Amended Independent Claim 26 and Amended Independent Claim 37
Independent Claim 26
[A1] Applicant's claim 26 recites that "the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system."
[A2]The cited references fail to teach or suggest such elements.
[A3] as best understood, Ellen merely teaches some of the walls and roof having transparent portions and with some of the walls and/or roof being opaque. Accordingly, Ellen fail to teach or suggest "the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system," as recited in claim 1.
[A4] The other cited references fail to remedy this teaching deficiency and are cited as teaching different subject matter. Therefore, for at least the foregoing reasons,
[A5] Applicant respectfully submits that claim 26 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited references. Withdrawal of the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, therefore, respectfully requested.
Independent Claim 37
[B1] Applicant respectfully submits that claim 37 is allowable at least for reasons discussed above in connection with claim 26.
[B2] Therefore, at least for reasons including some of those discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that Ellen does not anticipate claim 37.
[B3] Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 37 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Ellen.
Applicant’s arguments [A1-A5] and [B1-B3] above with respect to the above claim limitations in amended independent claim 26 and amended independent claim 37 have been carefully and comprehensively considered but were not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
Consequently, when broadly yet reasonably interpreted, claim 26 limitation “the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent” would also encompass the limitation wherein at least portions of the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being are substantially completely transparent or translucent. Prior art Ellen in at least fig. 10, [0070] discloses a parallel sidewall portions 406 being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from sides of the isolation room system. See at least Ellen fig. [0070] “the canopy 402 defines …a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”. Prior art Lee-NPL in at least fig. 1, 4, 8, [0048], [0075], [0086], [0104] discloses two parallel end-walls 111, 412, 434 being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from sides of the isolation room system. See at least Lee-NPL [0048] “roller screen (110) includes a transparent sheet (111) made of a transparent soft or hard material”; [0075] “the foldable side door (400) is configured as a lower door (410), and includes a lower door frame (411) having a rectangular frame… a lower transparent window (412) coupled to the inner side of the lower door frame”; [0086] “the tilting door (430) includes an upper transparent window (434) coupled to the inside of the tilting door frame (431).”. Karle in abstract, fig. 1, [0023] discloses the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall being substantially completely transparent or translucent to allow visibility of an isolated patient within the chamber from all sides of the isolation room system. See at least Karle [0023] “enclosure 14 is preferably formed from a flexible transparent sheet material, which is airtight, such as vinyl, and is sized to fit in the space provided by the framework 12…enclosure 14 shown in FIG. 1 is formed from panels, specifically, four side panels 30, a roof panel 32, and a floor panel 34. The panels 30, 32, 34 are sealed together at their edges to define an enclosed space 36”.
Similarly, when broadly yet reasonably interpreted, claim 37 limitation “where one or more of the two parallel end-walls, the two parallel sidewalls, and the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent” would also encompass the limitation where at least portions of one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls or the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent. Prior art Ellen in at least fig. 10, [0070] discloses where at least portions of one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls or the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent. See at least Ellen fig. [0070] “the canopy 402 defines …a plurality of transparent or otherwise see-through windows 406 to allow visibility therethrough”.
As per Applicants arguments [B1-B3] above, the independent claim 37 as amended, recite similar limitations as noted above with respect to Claim 26. Therefore, the reasons discussed and proffered above with respect to Claim 26, also apply to independent claim 37 limitations. Further, Ellen in at least fig. 10 [0070] discloses where at least portions of one of the two parallel end-walls or the two parallel sidewalls or the at least one roof wall are substantially completely transparent or translucent.
In response to applicant's arguments [A4] above, arguing against the references individually, Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the above reasons, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 26 over the combination of applied art the combination of Ellen, Lee-NPL and Karle as a whole still applies to claim 26 as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants and is being maintained at this time. For the above reasons, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 37 over Ellen still applies to claim 37 as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants and is being maintained at this time. Thus, claims 26 and 37 as now explicitly, positively and specifically recited by the Applicants are not allowable at this time. Please also cross-reference detailed claim 26 and claim 37 interpretation, claim limitation mapping to prior art disclosed features and method steps and detailed explanations above.
Issues Raised and Arguments/Remarks to Rejections Based On Prior Art presented on Pages 19 of Applicant’s Amendment dated 10/14/2025 where Applicant’s’ remarks inter alia that:
35 U.S.C. § 102/103 Rejection of Dependent Claims 27-36 and 38-46.
[a] Dependent Claims 27-36 and 38-46 Are Allowable Under Over The Cited References:
[b] Claims 27-36 and 38-46 each depend from one of claims 26 and 37 described above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 27-36 and 38-46 are allowable at least for depending from an allowable independent claim. In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that at least some of claims 27-36 and 38-46 additionally recite patentable subject matter not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by the cited references, individually or in combination.
[c] For at least reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 27-36 and 38-46 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. and § 102 and § 103 over the cited references. Withdrawal of the pending rejections of these claims is, therefore, respectfully requested.
Applicant’s arguments [a-c] above with respect to dependent claims 27-36 and 38-46 been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the dependent claims 27-36 and 38-46 define a patentable invention based on their dependency on base claims without specifically pointing out how the language of the dependent claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Please also cross-reference detailed claims 27-36 and 38-46 interpretation, claim limitation mapping to prior art disclosed features and method steps and detailed explanations above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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.
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791