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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 10 December 2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 19 are pending with claims 4 and 17-18 being withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Popa-Simil does not teach that all pathways for the spread of pathogens either pass through a sterilizing means or are blocked by a physical barrier and does not teach a sterilization means that destroys or removed 99-100% of pathogens. However, as identified in the Final Rejection mailed 11 July 2025, Popa-Simil separated enclosed spaces which would require all pathways of the spread of pathogens to encounter the sterilizing means or be blocked by a physical barrier (Figure 9 pathogens originating from customer “901” must pass through meeting space as it originates from within defined air shield space “908”, “906” and “912”). As can be seen in Figure 9, the air shield space fully encloses the person “901” and pathogens would need to pass through the barrier to either enter or exit the space. An additional example of this is provided in Figure 5 which divides a central four person table into four separate modules protected from aerial droplet exchange by a double curtain of hot air and UV light (paragraph [0346]). Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 1 require the sterilizing means to be confined to the central meeting space. However, the limitations of the claim state the sterilizing means may also be confined to the adjacent meeting spaces (a4) and present an alternative where the pathogen is blocked by a barrier to prevent pathogens passing between the person locations (b5 (2)). The teachings of Popa-Simil anticipate either alternative as the sterilizing means are individual to each person space (paragraph [0346]) and Popa-Simil additionally teaches physical barrier between patrons (sliding lateral separation screen, paragraph [0348]). Applicant argues that Popa-Simil does not teach meeting spaces at all however, Popa-Simil explicitly teaches a system to allow face to face meetings for eating, drinking and talking (paragraph [0005]).
In regards to the applicant’s argument that Popa-Simil does not teach a sterilizing means that destroys or removes 99-100% of pathogens, Popa-Simil explicitly teaches sterilizing all fluid effluents (paragraph [0296]) and produces an antiseptic seamless screen (paragraph [0375]). As the accepted definitions of sterilizing is make something free from bacteria or other microorganism and of antiseptic is freed from pathogenic microorganism, Popa-Simil anticipates the above limitation. Additionally, Popa-Simil teaches the droplet retention rate of their system is 99.95% (paragraph [0285]).
Following the above logic, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1-2, 5-7, and 12-15 are maintained.
As the 102 rejections are maintained, the applicant’s argument that Popa-Simil could not support a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is not persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 16 over Popa-Simil in view of Dorn is maintained.
As there were not arguments presented against the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 3 and 8-11 over Popa-Simil in view of Hedman are maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-16) and the species of “at least one heat source and/or one heated air produced by a heat source or thermal updraft” (claims 1, 2(a), 3(j)-(k), 5-6, 7(b), and 8-16) in the reply filed on 18 December 2024 are acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 December 2024.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 December 2024.
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.
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.
Claim 1 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the structure of the functional language is clarified by dependent claim 2 and the specification. The structure is further clarified in the applicants response to a species election requirement filed 18 December 2024. For the purpose of this evaluation, the phrase “means are provided to make the meeting spaces sterile or to substantially reduce the number of pathogens in the meeting space” has been interpreted to mean at least one heat source and/or one heated air produced by a heat source, or a thermal updraft.
Claim 15 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the structure of the functional language is clarified by the specification. For the purpose of this evaluation, the phrase “means to create a visual image” has been interpreted to mean use of UV or visible light to create visual effect” as described on page 6 of the application specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 12-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Popa-Simil (US 20210353794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Popa-Simil teaches a system providing one or more safe meeting spaces for two or more persons (sanitized conditions for a face to face meeting, abstract) wherein: a1) the system provides a central meeting space and person locations outside of the central meeting space for persons using the central meeting space with no barriers between the central meeting space and the person locations such that the persons in the person locations can communicate with each other through the central meeting space (Figure 5 four person central table “501” with diagonal separation zone “503” to separate the four individual person locations and centralized access assembly “516”), a2)wherein the system provides adjacent person locations outside the central meeting space, the system further providing adjacent person meeting spaces or partitions provided between adjacent person locations, wherein the partitions are constructed so as to prevent the spread of pathogens between the adjacent person locations (Figure 4 diagonal separation zones “503” create individual person locations and can be further separated using diagonal sliding separation screen “510”), a3) the system is configured such that all pathways within the system for the possible spread of pathogens between the person locations separated by the central meeting place or separated by the adjacent person meeting space pass through one or more of the central meeting space and the adjacent meeting spaces (Figure 9 pathogens originating from customer “901” must pass through meeting space as it originates from within defined air shield space “908”, “906” and “912”), sterilizing means are provided to make the meeting spaces sterile or to reduce the number of pathogens in the meeting space (utilizes air decontamination procedures, paragraph [0005] and viruses with be damaged by the heat, paragraph [0284]), wherein the means specifically makes the central meeting space and the adjacent meeting spaces completely 100% sterile or reduces the number of pathogens in the meeting spaces by at least 99% (sterilizes all fluid effluents emitted by a person and continuously maintains the person in a safe environment, paragraph [0296], and seamless antiseptic screen, paragraph [0375]) the sterilizing means confined to the central meeting space and the adjacent person meeting space (Figure 9 hot air sterilizing curtain “906” operating at central table “916” between the two person locations not directly on the person “901”), a5) the system is configured to allow for persons using the central meeting space or the adjacent person meeting spaces to hear each other through the meeting space (allow for talking in comfortable conditions, paragraph [0005]) and for at least two persons using central meeting space or the adjacent person meeting spaces see each other through the central meeting space or the adjacent person meeting spaces (customers separated by invisible hot air barriers, abstract), and a6) the system is constructed so that all pathways for the spread of pathogens between person locations within the system must either (1) pass through the central meeting space or the adjacent person meeting spaces each including the sterilization means; or are (2) blocked by the partition between adjacent person locations (Figure 9 pathogens originating from customer “901” must pass through meeting space as it originates from within defined air shield space “908”, “906” and “912” and system produces seamless antiseptic screen, paragraph [0375]); OR b1) the system provides meeting spaces and person locations outside the meeting spaces for persons using the meetings spaces (Figure 7 multiple table modules “703” in a restaurant hall “701” with corresponding customer seating locations “704”), with no barriers between the meeting spaces and the person locations such that persons in the person locations using the same meeting space of the meeting space can communicate with each other through the same meeting space (Figure 7 table modules act “703” act as centralized access assemblies), b2) the system is constructed so that all pathways within the system for the passible spread of pathogens between the person locations must pass through at least one of the meeting spaces (Figure 9 pathogens originating from customer “901” must pass through meeting space as it originates from within defined air shield space “908”, “906” and “912”), b3) sterilizing means are provided to make the meeting spaces sterile or to reduce the number of pathogens in the meeting space (utilizes air decontamination procedures, paragraph [0005] and viruses with be damaged by the heat, paragraph [0284]), wherein the means sterilizing means making each of the meeting spaces completely 100% sterile or reduces the number of pathogens in the meeting spaces by at least 99% (sterilizes all fluid effluents emitted by a person and continuously maintains the person in a safe environment, paragraph [0296], and seamless antiseptic screen, paragraph [0375]) the sterilizing means confined to the meeting spaces (Figure 9 hot air sterilizing curtain “906” operating at central table “916” between the two person locations not directly on the person “901”), b4) the system is configured to allow for persons in the person locations using the same meeting spaces to hear each other through the meeting space (allow for talking in comfortable conditions, paragraph [0005]) and for at least two persons using the same meeting spaces to see each other through the meeting space (customers separated by invisible hot air barriers, abstract), and b5) the system is constructed so that all pathways for the spread of pathogens between person locations within the system must either (1) pass through the central meeting space or the adjacent person meeting spaces each including the sterilization means; or are (2) blocked by the partition between adjacent person locations (Figure 9 pathogens originating from customer “901” must pass through meeting space as it originates from within defined air shield space “908”, “906” and “912” and system produces seamless antiseptic screen, paragraph [0375]).
Regarding claim 2, Popa-Simil teaches wherein the means comprise at least one heat source and/or heated air and/or a thermal updraft (boundary line contains hot air curtain, paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 5, Popa-Simil teaches providing more than one safe meeting space for two or more persons comprising one or more systems of claim 1 and further providing means to prevent pathogens passing between persons using different meeting spaces (Figure 7 multiple table modules “703” separated from cross-contamination by air shields “705”).
Regarding claim 6, Popa-Simil teaches wherein the means for the adjacent person spaces and/or for meeting spaces that are close to persons are not harmful to the persons (air must not be heated so high it becomes dangerous in people’s proximity, paragraph [0299]).
Regarding claim 7, Popa-Simil teaches wherein the means that are not harmful to persons comprise one or more of the following: heated air of sufficient temperature to destroy pathogens (viruses with be damaged by the heat, paragraph [0284]) and/or extract pathogens by creating a convective updraft without being a sufficient temperature to harm persons (customers are protected from pathogens by a redundant system of toroidal convection currents, claim 14).
Regarding claim 12, Popa-Simil teaches wherein heat energy provided by the means and/or heat energy from the one or more meeting spaces is used to destroy/remove pathogens from the space in which the system is located (hot air barrier takes away bacteria and viruses, abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Popa-Simil teaches wherein the meeting spaces have air extraction means so that the meeting spaces are at negative pressure in relation to the person locations and/or the meeting spaces are at negative pressure in relation to the space in which the system is located (Figure 9 ascending hot air “916” is collected at “905” creating a positive airflow out of the meeting space).
Regarding claim 14, Popa-Simil teaches wherein providing clean airflows to the person locations and/or to the zone surrounding person locations so that the person locations and/or the zone surrounding person locations are at positive pressure in relation to the meeting spaces (Figure 9 air vent “904” provides an inlet of clean air “910” to the space surrounding the customer “901”).
Regarding claim 15, Popa-Simil teaches wherein the mean further comprise means to create a visual image which serves as a focus for conversation and/or to display a subject for discussion in the meeting spaces (Figure 8 boundary includes a retractable screen “839” that may be equipped with LCD screens to display various images, and images projected on light curtain, paragraph [0348]).
Regarding claim 19, Popa-Simil teaches all limitations of the current claim (See rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa-Simil in view of Hedman (US 20110064607 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Popa-Simil teaches all aspects of the current invention as described above except wherein the means utilize solar energy and/or stored solar energy and comprise one or more of the following solar thermal energy and a thermal updraft created by solar energy. However, Hedman teaches the means utilize solar energy and/or stored solar energy and comprise one or more of the following solar thermal energy and a thermal updraft created by solar energy (the heating step is conducted using a solar energy system, claim 22).
Popa-Simil is considered analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of sanitary meeting spaces. Additionally, Hedman is analogous to the current invention because both are in the field of sanitary air circulation systems. Popa-Simil teaches an electric heater to heat up the air used in the system (paragraph [0288]). Hedman teaches that the heating of air can be completed using an electric heater, solar heating, or any other suitable heating method (paragraph [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the electric heater taught by Popa-Simil with the solar heating system taught by Hedman through simple substitution to achieve predictable heating results (See MPEP 2143 I (B)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Popa-Simil and Hedman teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein heat energy that provides the means and/or heated air from one or more meeting spaces is also used to heat buildings or outdoor spaces (hot air is collected from module and either flushed outside of recirculated through the AC system, paragraph [0349], Popa-Simil).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Popa-Simil and Hedman teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein heated air from the meeting space is fed back into the meeting spaces (hot air is collected and recirculated, paragraph [0338], Popa-Simil).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Popa-Simil and Hedman teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein pathogens are destroyed from the heated air before it is used to heat building/outdoor spaces (sent as hot air exhaust after being passed through a hot air filter and catalytic burner that will remove all organic matter, paragraph [0306], Popa-Simil).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Popa-Simil and Hedman teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above including wherein pathogens are destroyed/removed from the heated air before it is fed back into the meeting spaces (collected air is fed through a catalytic burner to remove any organic material and fed back into meeting room system through hot air nozzles, paragraph [0287], Popa-Simil).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa-Simil in view of Dorn (US 5579614 A).
Regarding claim 16, Popa-Simil teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the system of claim 1 further comprises sound reflectors to enhance communication between the persons. However, Dorn teaches sound reflectors to enhance communication between the persons (half-cone plaster acoustic reflection diffusors, column 5 lines 56-58).
Popa-Simil is analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Dorn is analogous to the current invention as all are in the field of meeting rooms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system for a sterile meeting room taught by Popa-Simil with the acoustic reflector taught by Dorn because Dorn teaches the reflector promotes proper acoustics for business meeting rooms (column 5 lines 1-3).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799