DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 08, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 6-10 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 the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 1, the phrases “the inner surface” [line 11] & “the outer surface” [line 12] do not have a proper antecedent basis. Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
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 1-3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennrich et al., [US 5,662,581] in view of Eisert [US 4,141,609]. Jennrich teaches of a door assembly (figs. 1-2) for a sealed enclosure (sterile enclosure or isolation chamber) comprising a wall (10) having at least one passage opening (port) therein, the door assembly comprising a flange (defined as the combined unit of (11, 14 & 18) for instance) attached to the wall, and a leaf (defined as the combined (24) + (26) for example) mounted movable relative to the flange between a closed position (when the components are assembled and attached to the flange) in which the leaf closes the passage opening and an open position (when the components are disassembled and detached from the flange), characterized in that the flange comprises two flange elements (11, 14) distinct from each other (shown), the two flange elements comprising an inner ring (14) inside the enclosure and an outer ring (11) outside the enclosure, the two flange elements assembled together by assembly screws (16), the assembly screws being inherently arranged to be radially offset from an edge of the wall defining the passage opening so as to connect inner and outer rings together without passing through the wall interposed between the inner (14) and outer (11) rings (as shown in figure 1, the screws do not pass through the wall), the inner ring having a bearing surface (such as the inner surface of (15) bearing against seal (13) – fig. 2) arranged to bear, indirectly, against an inner surface of the wall (fig. 2), the outer ring (11) having a bearing surface (such as the inner surface of (12) bearing against seal (13) – fig. 2) arranged to bear, indirectly, against an outer surface of the wall (fig. 2). Jennrich teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed door assembly as outlined {mapped} above; but does not show the flange further comprising one or more set \ pressure screws passing through the outer ring and protruding from the bearing surface of the outer ring to apply clamping force to the wall as prescribed by applicant. As to this aspect, Eisert is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of set \ pressure screws (23) being used within an outer ring (22) of a port flange (figs. 1-3) and protruding from a bearing surface (surface facing a wall) of the outer ring to apply clamping force to a wall (10) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jennrich so as to add set screws annularly along the outer ring in view of Eisert’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing an adjustable yet secure means by which the flange is clamped to the wall of the enclosure, whereby when the screws (23) are tightened, the ring (22) exerts outward force thereby pulling flange (13) into tight engagement with the inner surface of wall (10) for a leak-proof seal (col. 3 of Eisert). As modified, the one or more set \ pressure screws would be arranged to apply clamping force to the wall so as to maintain the bearing surface of the outer ring bearing, indirectly, against the outer surface of the wall. Regarding Claim 2, as modified, the door assembly can comprise at least one protective washer (note (24) of Eisert) intended to be placed between the bearing surface of at least one of the flange elements and the wall portion; as such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jennrich so as to add a protective washer in view of Eisert’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which extra protection is placed upon the wall’s surface in order to minimize damage / deflection of the wall portion during tightening of the set screws. Regarding Claim 3, as modified, the door assembly comprises at least one seal (13) intended to be inserted between the bearing surface of at least one of the flange elements and the wall portion. Regarding Claim 6, as modified, the combined assembly includes the enclosure, the wall and passage opening as previously noted. Regarding Claim 7, as modified, the door assembly comprises the at least one seal intended to be inserted between the bearing surface of at least one of the flange elements and the wall portion as previously noted.
Claims 4 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jennrich et al., in view of Eisert and further in view of Granadino [US 2010/0314975]. The combined prior art teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed assembly as outlined above, but does not show the wall as having two wall elements along with an interspersed spacer. As to this aspect, Granadino is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a spacer (18) interspersed between wall elements (8, 20) of a wall of an enclosure (10) in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combined prior art so as to incorporate a spacer when the door assembly is employed with a wall having two wall elements in view of Granadino’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which a wall having two wall elements can be safely used with the door assembly when a spacer is inserted in between the two wall elements thereby increasing the utility of the device as it relates to enclosures having varying wall compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 08, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Again, the position being taken that the mapped rejections adequately account for the structural and functional aspect of the claimed invention in a manner as outlined by applicant. The examiner notes that while applicant argues a perceived distinction between the invention and the prior art, the invention itself relies upon intervening components (in a manner similar to the known art) in order to embody the claimed scope. Applicant remarks that the set \ pressure screws of Eisert function as a fundamentally different structure, to which the examiner notes that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. As modified, the incorporation of set \ pressure screws inserted into the outer ring and bearing, indirectly, against the wall of Jennrich’s device would yield the same result as applicant’s feature, especially since both rings are fastened together via the assembly screws (16).
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to affect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ. 2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ. 2d at 1396. The position being taken that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established since applicants claimed invention only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions. Common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of known devices according to their established functions, as such, the examiner has identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the same way as the claimed new invention does. Accordingly, since the applicant[s] have submitted no persuasive evidence that the combination of the above elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) because it is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions resulting in the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Consequently, the rejections are deemed adequate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing a transfer device with sealing means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
JOH
September 18, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights