DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 and 17 in the reply filed on 14 July 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
-The drawings are objected to because: Figs. 2, 3, and 5-15 include text labels that are blurry and illegible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Fig. 16 references S10, S20, S30, S40, S50 which are not found within the specification.
-Fig. 17 references S110, S120, S130, S140, S150 which are not found within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Examiner recommends deletion of paragraph [0001] since it is a duplicate recitation of the abstract.
-Examiner recommends removing the symbol and amending all recitations to –“T-shaped”— or –C-shaped—depending on what the limitations of the claim require.
-Fig. 4 appears to show the coatings on the baseplate however [0048-0049] and [0064] refer to the coatings shown in Fig. 3. It is possible the description for Figs. 3 and 4 should be switched.
-Paragraphs [0102-0111] contain reference to steps 1-7 which do not correspond to any elements shown in Figs. 16-17. Should possibly read “S10, S20, S30, S40, S50” and “S110, S120, S130, S140, S150”
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “characterized in that:” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –comprising:—
-Claim 1 recites “so as to” in line 19. Examiner recommends amending to –to—
-Claim 1 recites “comprising:” in lines 13. Examiner recommends amending to –means comprises:--
-Claim 2 recites “the floor plate” in line 9. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of floor plates—
-Claim 2 recites “so as to” in line 11. Examiner recommends amending to –to—
-Claim 2 recites “comprising:” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –comprises:--
-Claim 3 recites “wherein the ceiling panel comprising:” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein the ceiling panel comprises:”
-Claim 6 recites “characterized in that” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein—
-Claim 7 recites “characterized in that:” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –comprising:—
-Claim 7 recites “so as to” in line 11. Examiner recommends amending to –to—
Appropriate correction is required.
-Claim 7 recites “wherein the bracket…ceiling panel and the wall panel comprising:” in lines 13-14. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein the bracket…ceiling panel and the wall panel comprises:”
-Claim 7 recites “thereto” in line 17. Examiner recommends amending to –thereinto—
-Claim 9 recites “characterized in that” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein—
-Claim 10 recites “characterized in that” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein—
-Claim 12 recites “a mechanical equipment room” in lines 7-8. Examiner recommends amending to –and a mechanical equipment room—
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “wall panel reinforcing-connecting means” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to install the plurality of reinforcement wall panels on an outer surface of the outer wall panel. According to the specification the wall panel reinforcing-connecting means includes a connection block, C-shaped connection bracket and a fastening bolt [0081] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10-12 recites “a field-type modular negative pressure isolation room system” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is referenced by this limitation. Field-type could mean various things to one of ordinary skill in the art therefore, further clarification should be provided to define the term field-type.
-Claim 1 recites “both outer surfaces” in line 15. It is unclear what additional surfaces are being referenced since claim 1, line 11 references only one outer surface of the outer wall panel.
-Claim 1 recites “the reinforcement wall panel” in lines 15-16 and 18-19. It is unclear which reinforcement wall panel is being referenced to since both outer surfaces were previously referenced in preceding limitations. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 1 recites “C-shaped” in lines 17, 21 and 24. It is unclear whether this symbol requires a C or T shaped structure. Further clarification and correction should be provided.
-Claim 2 recites “the base plate” in line 6. It is unclear which base plate is being referenced to since a plurality of base plates were previously referenced in preceding limitations. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 2 recites “the floor plate” in line 10. It is unclear which floor plate is being referenced to since a plurality of floor plates were previously referenced in preceding limitations. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 3 recites “an uppermost surface” in line 4. It is unclear which surface this is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to an uppermost surface of the plurality of roof plates, the ceiling panel, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 3 recites “the roof plate” in line 7. It is unclear which roof plate is being referenced to since a plurality of roof plates were previously referenced in preceding limitations. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 3 recites “the ceiling plate” in line 11. It is unclear which ceiling plate is being referenced to since a plurality of ceiling plates were previously referenced in preceding limitations. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 3 recites “the horizontal direction” in line 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 6 recites “air supply/exhaust facilities are alternately arranged in a zigzag form” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is meant by alternately arranged because the disclosure shows utility hookups in parallel with one another. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 7 recites “the wall panel” in lines 10 and 14. It is unclear which wall panel is referred to in this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is the inner wall panel, outer wall panel, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 10 recites “the inner wall panels, a connecting portion between the outer wall panels” in lines 4-5. It is unclear which plural inner and outer wall panels are referred to in this limitation since independent claim 1 introduced both of these structures in singularity in line 3.
-Claim 10 recites “the inner wall panels” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “the outer wall panels” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (U.S. 20220316724) in view of Friedlos (U.S. 20200318339).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuzaki teaches a field-type modular negative pressure isolation room system [0028]—reference to isolated clean booth space secured under negative pressure and the booth capable of being disassembled and stored,
characterized in that: an inner wall panel and an outer wall panel are installed between a floor panel and a ceiling panel to partition an internal space into a plurality of rooms [Fig. 3B, elements 10,12 (outer wall panel), 20 (inner wall panel), 10,13 (ceiling panel), and 10,11 (floor panel)] and [0130]—reference to the main body of the booth including any number of rooms, and the floor panel, the ceiling panel, the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel are assembled in a modular structure which may be dismantled [0028]—reference to disassembly;
and a plurality of reinforcement wall panels are installed on an outer surface of the outer wall panel by a wall panel reinforcing-connecting means [Fig. 1, elements 10,12a and 10,12b (pillar members)] and [Fig. 1, element 16 (unit connection member)],
wherein the wall panel reinforcing-connecting means comprising: a connection block that is fixedly installed on any one of both outer surfaces of the reinforcement wall panel [0044; “The unit connection member 16 includes a pillar-like member provided with a thin plate-like adhesion margin. The unit connection member 16 is fixed in a state of being horizontally mounted between two of the column members 12b disposed on the side portion of the booth main body and unevenly distributed on the lower side of the side portion of the booth main body.”];
Matsuzaki is silent on a "C"-shaped connection bracket fixedly installed on the other one of both outer surfaces of the reinforcement wall panel so as to be coupled to the connection block; and a fastening bolt passing through the "C"-shaped connection bracket and the connection block to fasten them to each other in a state in which the connection block is inserted in a coupling groove of the "E"-shaped connection bracket.
Friedlos teaches a "C"-shaped connection bracket fixedly installed on the other one of both outer surfaces of the reinforcement wall panel so as to be coupled to the connection block [Fig. 9, element 166 (leveler foot/bracket)];
and a fastening bolt passing through the "C"-shaped connection bracket and the connection block to fasten them to each other in a state in which the connection block is inserted in a coupling groove of the "C"-shaped connection bracket [Fig. 9, element 174 (threaded rod/bolt), and [Fig. 6, elements 102-1/103-1 (first and second uprights/coupling grooves]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wall paneling connection features as taught by Friedlos to create a negative pressure chamber as suggested by Matsuzaki, as Matsuzaki discusses connecting the portions of the wall paneling together using bolts, nuts and equivalents [0048] with Friedlos because Friedlos teaches the configuration of the connection bracket and fastening means to allow for stability of the framework to endure during changes to it [0062].
Regarding Claim 2, Matsuzaki is silent on wherein the floor panel comprising: a plurality of base plates assembled adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction; a plurality of floor plates installed on the base plate and assembled adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction; and a lower end fixing plate installed between the base plate and the floor plate, and having a fixing groove part formed at an edge portion by bending the lower end fixing plate so as to allow lower end portions of the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel to be inserted and coupled thereto. Friedlos teaches wherein the floor panel comprising: a plurality of base plates assembled adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction [Fig. 11, element 206 (base track) and 164-1-3 (leveler assemblies)-showing adjacent assembly in a horizontal direction along the track];
a plurality of floor plates installed on the base plate and assembled adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction [Fig. 11, element 210 (stepped platform) and 124-1-2 (upright assemblies)—showing adjacent assembly in a horizontal direction along the floor plates;
and a lower end fixing plate installed between the base plate and the floor plate [Fig. 11, elements 102-1 and 103-1 (first uprights)], and having a fixing groove part formed at an edge portion by bending the lower end fixing plate so as to allow lower end portions of the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel to be inserted and coupled thereto, and [0074]—which describes the wall dividers and bases bending to allow for insertion and retention, also see annotated Fig. 11 below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an interface between the floor and walls as taught by Friedlos to connect various pieces of the enclosure as suggested by Matsuzaki, as Matsuzaki discusses the wall, frames and floor being in contact with one another [0113] with Friedlos because Friedlos teaches this configuration to allow for resiliency when the pieces are forced apart and then elastically returned to the original shape [0074].
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the ceiling panel comprising: a plurality of roof plates positioned on an uppermost surface and assembled adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction [Fig. 1, element 20 (wall portions)]—where an uppermost surface is interpreted to be in reference to the structure as a whole; a plurality of ceiling plates installed under the roof plate and assembled adjacent to each other in the horizontal direction [Fig. 1, elements 13b (horizontal beam members)—disposed in parallel to each other]; and an upper end fixing plate installed between the roof plate and the ceiling plate [Fig. 1, elements 13a and 13c (vertical beam members)], and having a fixing groove part formed at an edge portion by bending the upper end fixing plate so as to allow upper end portions of the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel to be inserted and coupled thereto [0047; “The receiving surface or the packing can be also provided to the vertical beam members 13a or the intermediate beam members 13c in the same manner as to the unit support members 15.”]—the same manner as to the unit support members includes an opening portion, interpreted to be the fixing groove part, that receives the members to allow for airtight securement according to [0042].
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuzaki teaches characterized in that air supply/exhaust facilities are alternately arranged in a zigzag form on the ceiling panel [Fig. 3B, elements 50a,b and 60a,b] and [0103]—which describes the disposition of the fan filter units on the ceiling of the main room and the exhaust units disposed on a side portion of the main room to allow for suppression of dust intrusion from outside of the clean booth when the air to flies up and down in a zig zag pattern.
Regarding Claim 10, Matsuzaki teaches characterized in that a seal member is installed at a connecting portion between the inner wall panels, a connecting portion between the outer wall panels, and a connecting portion between the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel [0053; “Except for these opening portions and the bottom side of the booth main body, the wall portions 20 are provided between the frames 10 assembled with each other or the like. The wall portions 20 are formed by screens. The portions except for the opening portions of the booth main body, the airtightness between the internal space and the external space is secured by the wall portions 20 formed with screens. Except for these portions, minute opening portions are formed for wiring of electrical equipment, wiring of communication lines, or the like. However, the minute opening portions are closed by a seal material.”]
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (U.S. 20220316724) in view of Friedlos (U.S. 20200318339) and in further view of Huang (U.S. 20220023787).
Regarding Claim 11, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the plurality of rooms comprises a front chamber [Fig. 2, element 220 (front room)], a negative pressure isolation room [Fig. 2, element 210 (main room)] and, and a mechanical equipment room [Fig. 2, element 240 (machine room)].
Matsuzaki and Friedlos are silent on a toilet. Huang teaches a toilet [0006; “a bathroom is formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include bathroom in the list of rooms contained within the isolation room system as taught by Huang to maintain environmental conditions within the system as suggested by Matsuzaki, and Friedlos as Matsuzaki discusses securing contaminants within the booth and maintaining cleanliness of air [0071] and Friedlos which discloses the method of construction being useful in environments that commonly contain bathrooms such as hospital rooms, work spaces and classroom settings [0037] with Huang because Huang teaches the significance of discharging and exchanging air from the bathroom facilities [0039].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (U.S. 20220316724) in view of Friedlos (U.S. 20200318339) and in further view of Huang (U.S. 20220023787) and in even further view of Jornitz (U.S. 20160010883).
Regarding Claim 12, Matsuzaki teaches wherein the rooms comprise a utility and equipment storage room [Fig. 2, element 240 (machine room)]—interpreted as storing machines, a negative pressure isolation room [Fig. 2, element 210 (main room)], a front chamber for a room [Fig. 2, element 220 (front room)], a mechanical equipment room [Fig. 2, element 240 (machine room)].
Matsuzaki and Friedlos are silent on a vestibule for a hallway, a shower room and toilet for a medical staff, a negative pressure hallway, an online visiting room, a toilet for a patient. Huang teaches a shower room and toilet for a medical staff, and a toilet for a patient [0038; “the bathroom (lA) possess a washbasin (lAl), a flush toilet (1A2) and other sanitary facilities (not shown in the figure).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include bathroom in the list of rooms contained within the isolation room system as taught by Huang to maintain environmental conditions within the system as suggested by Matsuzaki, and Friedlos as Matsuzaki discusses securing contaminants within the booth and maintaining cleanliness of air [0071] and Friedlos which discloses the method of construction being useful in environments that commonly contain bathrooms such as hospital rooms, work spaces and classroom settings [0037] with Huang because Huang teaches the significance of discharging and exchanging air from the bathroom facilities [0039].
Matsuzaki and Friedlos and Huang are silent on a vestibule for a hallway, a sewage/waste disposal room, a negative pressure hallway, and an online visiting room. Jornitz teaches a vestibule for a hallway [0067]—reference to modular hallways, a sewage/waste disposal room [0064]—discloses a specifically designed chamber to allow for transfer of waste, a negative pressure hallway [0064; “The clean rooms can be operated in a negative pressure totally isolated mode and when connected to a modular clean hallway”] , an online visiting room [0073]—reference to “containment cubicles” which is interpreted to mean a space that can accommodate online visiting capabilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hallways, waste rooms and other variations of building and hospital rooms as taught by Jornitz to provide isolation spaces as suggested by Matsuzaki, Friedlos, and Huang, as Matsuzaki discusses the use of various spaces to provide treatment, therapy and examination of an isolated patient [0030] and Friedlos which discloses the method of construction being useful in environments that commonly contain bathrooms such as hospital rooms, work spaces and classroom settings [0037] and Huang which discusses an isolation ward structure [abstract] with Jornitz because Jornitz teaches providing a containment or isolation system sufficient to isolate biosafety level 1, 2, 3, or 4 pathogens [0007].
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki (U.S. 20220316724) in view of Harber (U.S. 20180251975).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuzaki teaches A field-type modular negative pressure isolation room system [0028] —reference to isolated clean booth space secured under negative pressure and the booth capable of being disassembled and stored,
characterized in that: an inner wall panel and an outer wall panel are installed between a floor panel and a ceiling panel to partition an internal space into a plurality of rooms [Fig. 3B, elements 10,12 (outer wall panel), 20 (inner wall panel), 10,13 (ceiling panel), and 10,11 (floor panel)] and [0130]—reference to the main body of the booth including any number of rooms, and the floor panel, the ceiling panel, the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel are assembled in a modular structure which may be dismantled [0028]—reference to disassembly;
Matsuzaki is silent on and a bracket for connecting the ceiling panel and the wall panel may be installed under the ceiling panel so as to assemble the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel to the ceiling pane, wherein the bracket for connecting the ceiling panel and the wall panel comprising: a first channel part configured to allow an upper end portion of the outer wall panel to be inserted thereto; a coupling protrusion extending on an upper surface of the first channel part to be coupled into a coupling hole of the ceiling panel; and a second channel part formed perpendicular to the first channel part to allow an upper end portion of the inner wall panel to be inserted thereinto.
Harber teaches and a bracket for connecting the ceiling panel and the wall panel may be installed under the ceiling panel so as to assemble the inner wall panel and the outer wall panel to the ceiling pane [0101]—discloses the use of brackets in conjunction with multiple types of wall seal assemblies [Fig. 5A, element 1406 (ceiling panel), 1415 (inner wall panel), 1407 (outer wall panel), and 1414 (bracket)],
wherein the bracket for connecting the ceiling panel and the wall panel comprising: a first channel part configured to allow an upper end portion of the outer wall panel to be inserted thereto; a coupling protrusion extending on an upper surface of the first channel part to be coupled into a coupling hole of the ceiling panel; and a second channel part formed perpendicular to the first channel part to allow an upper end portion of the inner wall panel to be inserted thereinto, see annotated Fig. 5A/5B below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wall paneling components using bracket features as taught by Harber to create a negative pressure chamber as suggested by Matsuzaki, as Matsuzaki discusses connecting the portions of the wall paneling together using bolts, nuts and equivalents [0048] with Harber because Harber teaches the use of brackets and similar structures in a minimal manner [Abstract].
PNG
media_image1.png
838
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuzaki is silent on characterized in that the bracket for connecting the ceiling panel and the wall panel has a T shape. Harber teaches characterized in that the bracket for connecting the ceiling panel and the wall panel has a T shape [0101; “multiple types of three-way corners or ‘T’ intersections.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a T-shaped connection means as taught by Harber to connect wall and ceiling paneling as suggested by Matsuzaki, as Matsuzaki discusses connecting the portions of the wall paneling together using bolts, nuts and equivalents [0048] with Harber because Harber teaches connecting structures where the third wall/panel may extend from an exterior surface of the system [0159].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Chiang (U.S. 20210330533)-discloses a modular structure for use during an epidemic
-Meyer (U.S. 10787829)-includes reference to connection components for wall paneling
-Miller et al. Implementing a negative-pressure isolation ward for a surge in airborne infectious patients, American Journal of Infection Control, 45, 652-9, 2017.-includes implementation of a negative pressure isolation ward.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791