DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 22 December 2025.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 12-17 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the
amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 14, 16 and 16 as well as the cancellation of claims 7,
10 and 11.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 December 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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: “cargo aircraft locking system” in claim 1; and “locking mechanism” in claim 6.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 at lines 8-9 recites “four walls, a floor, and a ceiling, constructed such that an airtight module interior is formed”. The specification does not appear to be enabling for such a claim as to “four walls, a floor, and a ceiling” forming an airtight interior. Further reciting the phrase “constructed such that an airtight module interior is formed” does not further enable one to create an airtight interior as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the term “constructed” can have a multitude of implications when building an enclosure. The disclosure itself at paragraph [0023] of the instant publication states that connecting and sealing a front end, the back end, a first side, and a second side, such that a rectangular prism structure is formed, “generates an airtight module interior of the medical bio-containment module”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that diffusion of air molecules/particles will occur between parts that are merely placed together and sealed and absent any specifics with respect to particular materials or examples of such air tight modules, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of how a claimed “airtight module” would be created simply by placing walls together and sealing them. An undue amount of experimentation would be required to arrive at such an assertion, with a wide variety of materials in order to create such an environment. And typically, some type of high/ultra-high vacuum pump would be necessary to create such an environment, and the specification is likewise silent to such teaching.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the specification provides support for the lugs being “fully integrated on the side edges of the pallet system” as described in paragraph [0028], the recitation of the lugs being “integrated along side edges of the medical biocontainment module” constitutes new matter.
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 1-6, 8, 9 and 12-17 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.
Claim limitation “cargo aircraft locking system” (claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0028] discusses a “locking system” and “hook-like features”. The “hook-like features” are interpreted as the “locking mechanism” with respect to claim 6, however it is unclear what the corresponding structure is for “cargo aircraft locking system” in claim 1. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
At line 2 of claim 6, it is unclear if “a plurality of lugs” is the same as or different than “a plurality of lugs” recited at line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 6 at line 2 recites “a locking mechanism of the cargo aircraft”. It is unclear if the recited “locking mechanism” of claim 6 is the same as or different than “a cargo aircraft locking system” recited at line 6 of claim 1.
At line 3 of claim 6, it is unclear if “the lugs” is referencing “a plurality of lugs” at line 2, or “a plurality of lugs” recited at line 5 of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the lugs recited in claim 6 will be interpreted as the same as “a plurality of lugs” recited in claim 1.
At line 3 of claim 16, it is unclear if “a cargo aircraft” is the same as or different than “the cargo aircraft” recited at line 4 of claim 1.
At lines 4-5 of claim 16, it is unclear if “the locking system” and “a locking system” are the same as or different than “a cargo aircraft locking system” recited at line 6 of claim 1.
At lines 5-6 of claim 16, it is unclear if “a plurality of lugs” is the same as or different than “a plurality of lugs” recited at line 5 of claim 1.
At line 6 of claim 16, it is unclear if “the plurality of lugs” is referencing “a plurality of lugs” at line 5 of claim 16, or “a plurality of lugs” recited at line 5 of claim 1.
At line 3 of claim 17, it is unclear if “a plurality of lugs integrated along side edges of the pallet system” is the same as or different than “a plurality of lugs” and “the plurality of lugs” recited at lines 5-6 of claim 16; and “a plurality of lugs” recited at line 5 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0348407) in view of Russell (U.S. Patent No. 9,022,263). Regarding claims 1 and 6, Bruns et al. (hereinafter Bruns) teaches a medical bio-containment module for use in a cargo aircraft ([0024], [0064] and [0083]), the medical bio-containment module comprising:
a pallet system comprising a flat pallet bottom, operable to allow the medical bio-containment module to be rolled on and rolled off of the cargo aircraft due to the wheels as shown in Fig. 2; [0073]);
four walls, a floor, and a ceiling, constructed such that an airtight module interior is formed, and an outer structure of the medical bio-containment module is generated (Fig. 4A, [0084] and [0073]); a negative pressure fan system, operable to maintain a negative pressure within the airtight module interior and operable to, when engaged, remove contaminated air from the medical bio-containment module and replace the contaminated air with clean filtered air ([0084], [0093]-[0096]); an air filtration system connected to the negative pressure fan system, operable to remove airborne pathogens and particulates from the air ([0093]-[0094]); an anteroom (interpreted as the room 30 adjacent room 80 in Fig. 4A), the anteroom contained under the negative pressure from the negative pressure fan system ([0069], [0084], [0094]-[0096]); a ward area, the ward area further comprising a patient bed 83, a chair (adjacent element 104 as shown in Fig. 4A), and medical equipment ([0084] and Fig. 4A), the ward area contained under the negative pressure from the negative pressure fan system ([0069], [0084]); and an office area 80, comprising an access door 81 (Fig. 4A and [0086]).
However, Bruns fails to disclose explicitly that the anteroom comprises an office door and an anteroom door; the ward area also comprises the anteroom door; and the office area 80 comprises the office door. Given the teaching in Bruns that any room and any boundary wall may comprise a door ([0080]-[0082]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured both of the boundary walls of the anteroom in Fig. 4A to include a door, as one would facilitate passage between the office area 80 (thus constituting “an office door”) and another would facilitate passage between the adjacent patient room 30 (comprising the ward area) and the anteroom, therefore enabling access to a patient (thus creating “the anteroom door”).
While Bruns teaches that the pallet system enables transport of the patient module via an aircraft as disclosed above, Bruns does not teach explicitly that the pallet system further comprises a plurality of lugs integrated along sides edges (of the pallet system), operable to engage with a cargo aircraft locking system and lock the bio-containment module in place on the aircraft, without requiring chains or straps. Russell teaches a medical module for mobile transport via an aircraft, as likewise disclosed by Bruns, wherein the pallet system further comprises a plurality of lugs (detents 60), along side edges of the pallet 52, operable to engage with a “cargo aircraft locking system” (interpreted as “standardized rail locks” at col. 5, lines 56-62) and lock the medical bio-containment module in place on the plane, without requiring chains or straps (Fig. 5 and col. 5, lines 45-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of lugs, integrated along sides edges (of the pallet system), operable to engage with a cargo aircraft locking system, without requiring chains or straps and lock the medical bio-containment module in place on the plane, as taught by Russell, into a pallet system for facilitating mobile transport of a mobile patient module as suggested by Bruns, as Bruns recognizes the need to transport the module via various modes such as flatbed, train, airplane, helicopter or tractor-trailer [0024], and Russell discloses that a plurality of detents at uniformly spaced intervals along side edges of a pallet system enable securement of the container to the aircraft and prevent relative movement during transport col. 5, lines 54-62).
Regarding claim 2, Bruns teaches that the medical bio-containment module is operable to maintain the negative air pressure within the ward area and the anteroom of the airtight module interior through the negative pressure fan system ([0069], [0084]) while the cargo aircraft is in flight and while the cargo aircraft is on the ground ([0024], [0064] and [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Bruns teaches that the office area is not contained under the negative pressure from the negative pressure fan system [0086].
Regarding claim 5, Bruns teaches that the airtight module interior comprises acoustic reduction materials operable to reduce noise levels (wood – [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Bruns teaches that the module further comprises a decompression panel 110 operable to blow out from the outer structure during a decompression emergency allowing air flow through the airtight module interior [0085].
Regarding claim 9, Bruns teaches that the module further comprises an access panel (door 26) operable to, when opened, allow access to a main landing gear in an C-130J cargo plane (Fig. 4A, [0066] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Bruns teaches that the module further comprises an electrical system operable to provide power to the medical bio-containment module [0096].
Regarding claim 13, Bruns teaches that the air filtration system further comprises dust filters and HEPA filters [0094].
Regarding claim 14, Bruns teaches that the module further comprises a backup power system operable to power the medical bio-containment module in the event of a loss of a cargo aircraft power source [0096].
Regarding claim 15, Bruns teaches that the medical equipment comprises a liquid oxygen system operable to provide patients with oxygen for a 15 hour mission ([0084] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 16, and in view of its indefinite nature, Bruns teaches a method of using the medical bio-containment module of claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: loading the medical bio-containment module onto the cargo aircraft ([0024], [0064] and [0083]); connecting an electrical system from the medical bio-containment module to a cargo aircraft electrical system ([0012], [0032] and [0096]; loading patients into the ward area [0084]; and engaging the negative pressure fan system [0084]. And while Bruns fails to disclose explicitly that the access door, office door and anteroom doors are shut, such would be obvious in light of the teaching that the doors are present and a patient is being treated, prompting the necessity of shutting the doors to create a sterile, pressurized environment for treatment [0084]-[0087]). However, Bruns fails to disclose the step of locking the medical bio-containment module onto the cargo aircraft by engaging the locking system on the cargo aircraft such that the locking system interacts with a plurality of lugs, the pallet system comprising the plurality of lugs.
Russell teaches a medical module for mobile transport via an aircraft, as likewise disclosed by Bruns, wherein the pallet system further comprises a plurality of lugs (detents 60), along side edges of the pallet 52, operable to engage with a “cargo aircraft locking system” (interpreted as “standardized rail locks” at col. 5, lines 56-62) and lock the medical bio-containment module in place on the plane, without requiring chains or straps (Fig. 5 and col. 5, lines 45-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of lugs, integrated along sides edges (of the pallet system), operable to engage with a cargo aircraft locking system, without requiring chains or straps and lock the medical bio-containment module in place on the plane, as taught by Russell, into a pallet system for facilitating mobile transport of a mobile patient module as suggested by Bruns, as Bruns recognizes the need to transport the module via various modes such as flatbed, train, airplane, helicopter or tractor-trailer [0024], and Russell discloses that a plurality of detents at uniformly spaced intervals along side edges of a pallet system enable securement of the container to the aircraft and prevent relative movement during transport col. 5, lines 54-62).
Regarding claim 17, as disclosed above with respect to claims 1 and 16, the combination of Bruns and Russell teaches that the locking system engages with the lugs alongside edges of the pallet system to lock the medical bio-containment module in place on the cargo plane, without the use of chains or straps.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0348407) in view of Russell (U.S. Patent No. 9,022,263) and further in view of Anandasabapathy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0333267). Regarding claim 4, Bruns and Russell teaches that the outer structure of the medical containment module is constructed of metal ([0025] and [0073]), however the combination fails to teach explicitly that the metallic material is aircraft grade aluminum. Anandasabapathy et al. (hereinafter Anandasabapathy) teaches a mobile patient module comprised of modular walls/ceiling as disclosed by Bruns and Russell, wherein the walls can be made of a light-weight material including aluminum, which creates modular walls capable of preserving a sterile environment [0076]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the modular, metallic walls as taught by Bruns and Russell, of a light-weight aluminum as suggested by Anandasabapathy, as Bruns recognizes the need to use metal to construct the walls, and additionally provide mobility to the unit ([0025] and [0073]), and Anandasabapathy teaches that light-weight aluminum facilitates such mobility and enables the capability of creating a sterile environment in medical scenarios ([0076] and [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the objection to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the Replacement Drawing filed.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to interpretation of “locking mechanism” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered. Applicant contends that “locking mechanism” as used in claim 6, “is not a nonce word and would be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of aircraft cargo systems to denote a known class of mechanical structures used to secure cargo to an aircraft floor or rail system. Such locking mechanisms are standard, well-understood components in cargo aircraft and include hook-type, latch-type, or rail-engagement devices designed to mechanically engage pallet lugs.” In this instance, “mechanism” is regarded as the nonce term and “locking mechanism” is therefore interpreted as a mechanism for locking which would fall under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Applicant further states that the specification provides sufficient corresponding structure for performing the recited locking function, to which the examiner agrees, and therefore the specification is consulted for the corresponding structure. And since there is corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed function, the claim did not receive a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of disclosure of a corresponding structure. To that end, in the current amendment, “cargo aircraft locking system” is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), with the nonce term being “system”.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the specification, as filed, “provides sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention, including forming an airtight module interior” and points to paragraph [0023] which explicitly describes the structural formation of the module. Applicant further states that the disclosure “specifically identifies a construction methodology i.e. mechanical fastening with sealant at every joint. This is something that is well-known in the aerospace and containment fields for creating sealed enclosures. The use of aircraft-grade materials and military aircraft-grade hardware, as disclosed in paragraph [0023], further demonstrates that the sealing methodology is not arbitrary or theoretical, but based on established manufacturing techniques suitable for controlled environments”. While this may be the case, this argument/disclosure provides an enabling disclosure for “creating sealed enclosures” as pointed out by Applicant, not the claimed “airtight module interior” that is recited as being formed in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 2, 4, 7, 10-12, 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 8-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bruns have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on pages 13-14 with respect to Bruns, Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation (paragraphs 1 and 3) that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, paragraph 3 of page 13 through paragraph 1 of pg 14 states that Bruns does not teach a three-zone pressure architecture…controlled pressure gradient… “sealing and zoning of pressure-controlled compartments”… “aircraft-grade sealants, and structural materials compliant with flight safety requirements” or maintaining containment integrity during flight conditions, however such allegations are not found in the claim language.
However, Applicant also contends that Bruns fails to disclose “a pallet system comprising a flat pallet bottom structurally integrated with the module and equipped with a plurality of lugs along its side edges operable to engage with the locking system of a cargo aircraft.” It is noted that the language of the claim recites “a flat pallet bottom, operable to allow the medical bio-containment module to be rolled on and rolled off of the cargo aircraft, and the pallet system further comprising a plurality of lugs integrated along side edges of the medical bio- containment module, operable to engage with a cargo aircraft locking system without requiring chains or straps”. The amended language of claim 1, as noted above, necessitated incorporation of the art to Russell in order to meet the new limitations of the claim, as presented above.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bruns in view of Anandasabapathy have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on pages 14-15 with respect to Anandasabapathy, Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation (paragraphs 1 and 3) that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, paragraph 3 of page 14 through paragraph 1 of pg 15 states that “Anandasabapathy makes no mention of decompression panels, floor-locking mechanisms, or cargo aircraft compatibility. There is no disclosure of materials suitable for withstanding vibration, rapid decompression, or compliance for airworthiness. The system is described for stationary use or potential transport on wheeled vehicles or trailers but does not enable, support, or suggest use in flight. The use of aluminum is mentioned generically as a lightweight construction material ([0076]); however, there is no disclosure of aircraft-grade aluminum, nor any consideration of fatigue strength, fire resistance, or corrosion protection as required for aerospace use”. It is noted that the bulk of this response does not apply to the claim language of claim 4, which states “the outer structure of the medical bio-containment module comprises aircraft grade aluminum”. If Applicant wishes to claim a particular “aircraft-grade aluminum” which takes into consideration fatigue strength, fire resistance, or corrosion protection, such should be structurally (or materially) defined in the claim.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bruns in view of Russell have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 15 with respect to Russell, Applicant states that “although Russell describes detents or lugs ([col. 5, lines 45-65]), these are positioned along the external pallet frame and do not form an integrated part of a pressure-sealed module. There is no disclosure of those lugs being operable to secure a sealed medical module via cargo aircraft locking mechanisms without additional chains or straps. Further, the detents are used for generic container restraint and do not interface with a sealed, aircraft-ready bio-containment unit.” This language does not track with that of the amended claim (for instance, there is no recitation of “a pressure-sealed module” or an “external pallet frame”, therefore Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection above with respect to claim 1. With respect to the assertion that there is no disclosure of the lugs being operable to engage a cargo aircraft locking system without requiring chains or straps, there is no disclosure of “chains or straps” being required in Bruns. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of pg 15 and paragraph 1 of pg 16 amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Both paragraphs also address the references separately, where the rejections are based on a combination of references.
Pages 16-17 of the Remarks address dependent claims 2-9, 8, 9 and 12-17 individually. Some of these claims are addressed above and others, as noted above, do not address the claim language specifically, or how such claim language differs from the prior art. It appears that some of the arguments address limitations not presented in the claims and it is suggested that such claim language be incorporated in order to potentially define over the prior art of record.
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Charles A 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791