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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 05/18/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. The Applicant has overcome the Claim objections of record and they have been withdrawn; the Examiner similarly thanks the Applicant for the amendments regarding the transitional phrase “with” indicated with the claim interpretation.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on page 9 regarding the rejection of Xiadong in view of Hunter,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicant first argues the field of intended use by stating the Xiadong and Hunter are not related fields by citing Hunters lack of gloves; this is found to be spurious as the Examiner has already established that the prior art is related via Hunter and Xiadong both being ventilated workstations. The Applicant then argues that no motivation exists for the combination, where the Examiner would direct the Applicant to Page 6 pf the Non-Final Rejection filed 12/16/2025 for the rationale and motivation for the combination, overcoming the Applicants argument.
Further, the Applicant states that Xiadong’s element 27 is a microbiologicall sampler and not a return filter, however, the Examiner would direct the Applicant to ¶0022, Lines 14-16 & ¶0025, Lines 9-11 where Xiadong outlines the “high-efficiency air filter 27”, of which clearly is meant to engender an air filter, positioned in front of the opening for the first returning air channel, therefore, Xiadong shows a returning air filter, Further still, the Applicants speculation provides no evidence to support the art differentiating from a function of a “microbiological sampler” and a high-efficiency air filter within the prior art, as the art clearly uses element 27 for the stated purposes, overcoming the Applicants argument.
Additionally, the Applicant argues that Hunter does not teach a returning air filer, the Examiner would respond that Hunter teaches an air filter, with Xiadong showing the return air filter; Hunter is not required to teach or show a returning air filter, overcoming the Applicants argument.
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: “air guide element” in claims 7.
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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is a laminarizer, or a mesh-like sterile air distributor, identified as element number 9 as at least illustrated in Figure 1, and at least described in Page 7, Lines 14-33 of the 06/08/2022 specification.
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 § 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, 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiaodong (CN102090979) in view of Hunter et al (US 10,507,500).
Regarding claim 1, Xiaodong (CN102090979) shows a construction of a containment for an aseptic working chamber and a decontamination arrangement, comprising:
a) a base (see Annotated Figure 1) at a bottom of the working chamber (see Annotated Figure 1);
b) above the working chamber there is a circulating air zone (see Annotated Figure 1), in which a circulating air filter (see Annotated Figure 1) with a circulating air fan (see Annotated Figure 1) is arranged (see Annotated Figure 1);
c) the circulating air zone and the working chamber are delimited towards the outside by a housing (see Annotated Figure 1);
d) at least a first returning air channel (see Annotated Figure 1) leads from the working chamber into the circulating air zone (see Annotated Figure 1); and
e) a returning air filter (see Annotated Figure 1) is fluidically connected to the first returning air channel (see Annotated Figure 1 – the returning air filter 27 is a filter that is fluidly connected to the first returning air channel, as it is positioned in front of the flow path for the first returning air channel),
and an opening of the first returning air channel that faces the circulating air zone (see Annotated Figure 1).
However, Xiaodong lacks showing the returning air filter is arranged at the circulating air zone.
Hunter (US 10,507,500), a ventilated workstation, is in the same field of endeavor as Xiaodong which is a ventilated workstation.
Hunter teaches showing the air filter (30, Fig. 4) is arranged at the air zone (35, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening of the first returning air channel and returning air filter of Xiaodong to incorporate the teachings of the air filter of Hunter, which would ensure all air recirculated through the first returning air channel is filtered and maintains a constant inflow air volume providing safe and consistent containment of air (Col. 4, Lines 35-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Xiaodong shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the returning air filter, the opening of the returning air channel, and the circulating air zone.
However, Xiaodong lacks showing wherein the returning air filter is arranged at an opening of the first returning air channel into the circulating air zone or in the returning air channel.
Hunter teaches the air filter (30, Fig. 4) is arranged at the opening of the air channel (70, Fig. 4) into the circulating air zone or in the air channel (Fig. 4 – the air filter is arranged at the opening of the air channel, in the air channel 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening of the first returning air channel and returning air filter of Xiaodong to incorporate the teachings of the air filter of Hunter, which would ensure all air recirculated through the first returning air channel is filtered and maintains a constant inflow air volume providing safe and consistent containment of air (Col. 4, Lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 3, Xiaodong shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 2 including the returning air filter and wherein the opening of the returning air channel,
a) is in the form of a projection which widens the circulating air zone or projects into the circulating air zone (see Annotated Figure 1 – the opening of the first returning air channel is in the form of a projection which widens the circulating air zone as it approaches the working chamber below)
or
b) merges into the circulating air zone without a projection, virtually with a linear cross-section.
However, Xiaodong lack showing wherein the opening of the returning air channel which holds the returning air filter
However, Xiaodong lacks showing the opening of the first returning air channel holding the returning air filter.
Hunter shows showing the opening of the air channel (70, Fig. 4 – the air filter 30 is located at the opening of the air channel 70) holding the air filter (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the opening of the first returning air channel and returning air filter of Xiaodong to incorporate the teachings of the air filter of Hunter, which would ensure all air recirculated through the first returning air channel is filtered and maintains a constant inflow air volume providing safe and consistent containment of air (Col. 4, Lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 4, Xiaodong shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including a) the returning air filter (27, Fig. 4), and b) the circulating air filter (30, Fig. 4) is in the form of a plate filter (Fig. 4) or an exchangeable filter cartridge or a replaceable filter insert.
However, Xiaodong lacks showing a) the returning air filter is in the form of a plate filter or an exchangeable filter cartridge or a replaceable filter insert.
Hunter teaches a) the air filter (30, Fig. 4) is in the form of a plate filter (Fig. 4) or an exchangeable filter cartridge or a replaceable filter insert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the returning air filter of Xiaodong to incorporate the teachings of the air filter of Hunter, which would ensure all air recirculated through the first returning air channel is filtered by a uniform filter distribution and maintains a constant inflow air volume providing safe and consistent containment of air (Col. 4, Lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 5, Xiaodong shows wherein:
a) a single returning air filter (see Annotated Figure 1) or a series of interacting returning air filters is provided (see Annotated Figure 1); and
b) a single circulating air filter (see Annotated Figure 1) or a series of interacting circulating air filters is installed (see Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Xiaodong shows wherein the at least a first returning air channel:
a) comprises a transparent front window and a transparent channel window spaced apart therefrom (Fig. 3 / see Annotated Figure 1 – the first returning air channel comprises of double glazed glass, that of a transparent front window and a transparent channel window, in which a glove opening 21 is located within both); and
b) has an inflow opening (see Annotated Figure 1) which is situated above and close to the base (see Annotated Figure 1)..
Regarding claim 7, Xiaodong shows wherein an air guide (5, Fig. 1/4) extends between the circulating air zone and the working chamber (see Annotated Figure 1) and serves to generate a parallel displacement flow (LF) flowing downwards in the working chamber (¶0025 – more uniform and stable laminar flow (LF) occurs through the air guide element 5).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The following prior art teaches related ventilated workstations:
JP2015526269 discloses a return air filter positioned within a return air channel
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 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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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 Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights