DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/12/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 77, line 3, “124” should be --114--.
In paragraph 77, line 9, “between eft” should be --between left--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (such as instances reciting a number for a part that corresponds to a different part in the drawings, such as the “124” issue mentioned in paragraph 77 above, or word misspellings such as the one described above). Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22, line 3, “tht” should be --that--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14, 15, 20, 25, 27-29 and 31-35 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 14 recites the limitation "the flexible material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should probably be --the flexible sheet--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the left side” and “the right side” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “pie-shaped” in line 2. This is unclear as one cannot determine what shape this is supposed to be as there can be any number of shapes that pies can take (circular, semi-circular, a circle with slices, a triangular slice of pie, rectangular hand pie, etc...).
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the length of the left portion and the length of the right portion” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each instance of “the length” in the limitation of the claim.
Claims 27-29 are unclear. Claim 27 makes reference to claim 28, claim 28 makes reference to claim 29, and claim 29 makes reference to claim 28. This makes a loop that makes it unclear what the limitations of the preceding claims are.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the through-opening" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the through-opening" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the flexible material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation should probably be --the flexible sheet--.
Claims 32-35 inherit the deficiencies of claim 31 and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0139996 (Zheng).
In regards to claim 1, Zheng discloses various collapsible structures (title; abstract; figures 1A-B, and 4-6; paragraphs 21-60). Zheng shows an enclosure (figures 1A, 4-6) comprising:
a frame (see figures 1A-B, paragraphs 21-38; note that portions have arbitrary boundaries) having:
a rear portion (panel (28) has frame member 40);
a left portion (panel (24) has frame member 40) attached to the rear portion;
a right portion (panel (26) has frame member (40)) attached to the rear portion, opposite from the left portion; and
a top portion (70; paragraph 38; note that attachment to one of the panels makes the top portion attached to all the panels) attached to the rear portion, the left portion, and the right portion; and
a flexible sheet (46; paragraph 27 sheet extends across panels) disposed over at least part of the frame, the flexible sheet covering a front portion (panel (22)).
In regards to claim 2, Zheng discloses the limitation of claim 1. Zheng also discloses the presence of a base portion/floor (58) that is attached to the rear, front, left, and right portions (paragraph 31).
In regards to claim 3, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 2. In addition, as noted in paragraphs 34-36 and 41-42 and figures 3A-3C, the device is folded for storage. Because of how the panels are folded with floor/base being tucked between panels, one of the later folds (which contain all the panels together) can be interpreted as the left and right portions being folded downward toward the base portion as the panels are folded together.
In regards to claim 8, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, because the panels are stitched together, the frame can be considered as unitary construction.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 10, 12-13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0294827 (Carr et al., hereinafter Carr).
In regards to claim 1, Carr disclose a bed enclosure (figures 1-10; paragraphs 29-63) comprising:
a frame having:
a rear portion (figure 1, frame section including frame supports 116, 124, and 122);
a left portion (figure 1; frame section that includes frame supports 126, 124, and 112) attached to the rear portion;
a right portion (figure 1; frame section that includes frame support members 122, 128, and 114) attached to the rear portion, opposite from the left portion; and
a top portion (figure 1; frame support members 112, 114, 116, and 118; paragraph 37-40) attached to the rear portion, the left portion, and the right portion; and
a flexible sheet (figure 2; tent 200 goes over the frame and is made of flexible materials, note that each section of the tent can be considered as sheet; paragraphs 41-45) disposed over at least part of the frame, the flexible sheet covering a front portion (figure 1, frame section including frame support members 126, 128, and 118).
In regards to claim 5, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, as show in figure 2, the tent/sheet covers the top, left, right, and rear portions of the frame.
In regards to claim 9, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, paragraphs 38-39 states that the frame support members are connected together via flanges, thus making them removably connected.
In regards to claim 10, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, the sheet has a rectangular central portion. As stated in paragraphs 41-44 the walls are connected via zipper connections, which can configure the sheet to have a rectangular central portion (wall 212 and roof), a left wing portion, and right wing portion (wall 216 and 218) when being partially unzipped (wings would be connected to the roof).
In regards to claim 12-13, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Carr shows in figure 4 that the sheet has a through-opening formed therethrough that is covered by a window (222) (paragraph 42).
In regards to claim 23, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Carr states that the can be attached to the bed frame (a base portion) via flanges, which makes the base portion releasably attached to the left and right portions.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1,523,973 A2(Yuen).
In regards to claim 1, Yuen discloses an isolation chamber (abstract) with the following components:
a frame (Figs. 3a-5; housing 10; paragraphs [0026] – [0049]) having:
a rear portion (part of housing 10);
a left portion (part of housing 10) attached to the rear portion (implicit from part of housing 10);
a right portion (part of housing 10) attached to the rear portion (implicit from housing 10), opposite from the left portion (part of housing 10); and
a top portion (part of housing 10) attached to the rear portion, the left portion, and the right portion (implicit from housing 10); and
a flexible sheet (Fig. 15; flexible enclosure 30) disposed over at least part of the frame, the flexible sheet covering a front portion (paragraphs [0030] and [0045]).
In regards to claim 2, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a base portion (Fig. 16; the surface under enclosure 30) attached to the left portion and to the right portion (Fig. 16).
In regards to claim 9, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses frame comprising plurality of removably connected pieces (paragraph [0033]).
In regards to claim 18, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the left portion, the right portion, and the rear portion each comprise a rigid transparent side (paragraph [0021] suggests the use of transparent material for components).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,461,290 (Reichman et al., hereinafter Reichman).
Due to the 112 issues of the claims, Examiner will examine the claim based on the present limitations. Reichman discloses a collapsible isolation apparatus (title and abstract; figures 1, 2, 3, 14, 24, and 25). Of particular interest are the glove ports (150), a through-opening, shown in figure 3 with their respective gloves are attached to ports (column 9, line 22 – column 10, line 28) in order to allow caregivers to manipulate the patient without breaking the airtight barrier and releasing contaminants into the environment. Reichmann shows in figure 24 and 25 that the port covers used for the opening and that they are in pie-shaped pieces (column 10, lines 4-28). Figure 26 shows the device being collapsed into a carrier, which would make the cover for the opening flexible.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,523,973 A2 (Yuen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,241,653 (Gauger et al., hereinafter Gauger).
In regards to claim 4, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 2 above but does not state that the base portion has a through-portion. In a related area, Gauger discloses an isolation apparatus (title and abstract; column 3, line 6-column 7, line 50) that includes several air inlet and output ports to control air flow into the chamber depending on the type of containment needed (figures 1 and 2; elements 52, 54, 56, 58; column 6, lines 6-column 7, line 50). The openings of Gauger and the openings of the claimed invention serve similar functions in drawing air into the enclosure. The openings of Gauger are on the side of the device while Applicant claims an opening on the base portion of the device. Applicant has not specified how the claimed location provides, an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the opening of Gauger and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the location taught by Gauger or the claimed bottom portion placement for performing the function of drawing air into the enclosure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yuen to include through openings as taught by Gauger in order to control air flow into the chamber depending on the type of containment needed. It also would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device of Yuen and Gauger to obtain the invention as specified by claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yuen and Gauger.
In regards to claims 16 and 17, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Yuen does not disclose the presence of a fan or suction tube. In a related area, Gauger discloses an isolation apparatus (title and abstract; column 3, line 6-column 7, line 50) that includes several air inlet and output ports to control air flow into the chamber depending on the type of containment needed (figures 1 and 2; elements 52, 54, 56, 58; column 6, lines 6-column 7, line 50) and blower unit (70) that functions as a fan that is attached to the inlet or outlet port vi aa tube (76). The openings of Gauger and the openings of the claimed invention serve similar functions in drawing or suctioning air into the enclosure. The openings of Gauger are on the side of the device while Applicant claims an opening on the base portion of the device. Applicant has not specified how the claimed location provides, an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the opening of Gauger and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the location taught by Gauger or the claimed bottom portion placement for performing the function of drawing or suctioning air into the enclosure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yuen to include through openings as taught by Gauger in order to control air flow into the chamber depending on the type of containment needed. It also would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device of Yuen and Gauger to obtain the invention as specified by claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yuen and Gauger.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11, 30-33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0294827 (Carr et al., hereinafter Carr) as applied to claims 5 and 10 above, and further in view of US 4,275,719 (Mayer).
In regards to claims 6 and 11, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 5 and 10 but does not disclose the presence of vertical strips along the left, right and rear portions. In a related area, Mayer discloses a device to isolate a surgical environment (title; abstract; figures 3-5 column 3, line 30 – column 7, line 2) which shows a clear canopy or tent enclosure supported by a frame. Of particular note are the overlapping vertical strips (56) that are part of the tent enclosure on each side of the structure (column 5, lines 1-16), where the strips allow for ingress of a surgeon to perform procedures while maintaining a sterile atmosphere adjacent the patient. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Carr to include the presence of vertical strips on the left, right, and rear portions of the enclosure as taught by Mayer in order to allow a surgeon into the chamber perform procedures while maintaining a sterile environment.
In regards to claim 7, Carr and Mayer disclose the limitations of claim 6. While Mayer discloses overlapping vertical strips, Mayer does not state that the strips from two rows where the rows are offset from each other. Applicant has not provided any reason how the claimed configuration provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Both configurations are used to maintain an isolated environment while allowing for physicians to access the internal chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the vertical strips of Carr and Mayer and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the vertical strip configuration of Carr and Mayer or the claimed strip configuration for performing the function of isolating an environment while allowing for physician access to the patient.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Carr and Mayer obtain the invention as specified by claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Carr and Mayer.
In regards to claims 30-31, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 1. Carr also shows in figures 1-4 that the sheet extends partially around a lower perimeter of the frame and extends over the upper perimeter of the frame forming a roof (215) (paragraphs 41-48) but does not disclose the presence of vertical hanging strips. In a related area, Mayer discloses a device to isolate a surgical environment (title; abstract; figures 3-5 column 3, line 30 – column 7, line 2) which shows a clear canopy or tent enclosure supported by a frame. Of particular note are the overlapping vertical strips (56) that are part of the tent enclosure (column 5, lines 1-16), where the strips allow for ingress of a surgeon to perform procedures while maintaining a sterile atmosphere adjacent the patient. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Carr to include the presence of vertical strips on the left, right, and rear portions of the enclosure as taught by Mayer in order to allow a surgeon into the chamber perform procedures while maintaining a sterile environment.
In regards to claim 32, Carr and Mayer disclose the limitations of claim 31. In addition, as shown in figure 4 and described in paragraphs 41-48, the tent (200) has components that are joined together to form a single unitary sheet.
In regards to claim 33, Carr and Mayer disclose the limitations of claim 32. In addition, due to the tent’s sheet structure (such as that described in paragraphs 41-45 and figures 2 and 4), the sections of the sheet can be partially unzipped in a manner that would make the sheet contain a rectangular main body and a have a pair of wing sections that extend on opposing sides of the main body (the right and left side walls) where the right and left side walls are attached to the roof but not to the front and rear portions. As noted in the rejection of claim 30, Mayer shows the overlapping vertical strips (56) that are part of the tent enclosure on each side of the structure (column 5, lines 1-16), where the strips allow for ingress of a surgeon to perform procedures while maintaining a sterile atmosphere adjacent the patient. It is noted that in Mayer, that figures 4 and 5 suggest the presence of the strips on all sides of the structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Carr and Mayer to include the presence of vertical strips on rear of the main body as taught by Mayer in order to allow a surgeon into the chamber perform procedures while maintaining a sterile environment.
In regards to claim 35, Carr and Mayer disclose the limitation of claim 32. In addition, as shown by Mayer in the rejection of claim 30, the vertical strips overlap each other (see figure 5), which meet the limitations of the claim.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0294827 (Carr et al., hereinafter Carr) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,461,290 (Reichman et al., hereinafter Reichman).
In regards to claim 14, Carr discloses the limitations of claim 12, but does not disclose the presence of a glove. In a related area, Reichman discloses a collapsible isolation apparatus (title and abstract; figures 1, 2, 3, 14, 24, and 25). Of particular interest are the glove ports (150), a through-opening, shown in figure 3 with their respective gloves are attached to ports (column 9, line 22 – column 10, line 28) in order to allow caregivers to manipulate the patient without breaking the airtight barrier and releasing contaminants into the environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to include gloves and glove ports as taught by Reichman in the device of Carr in order to allow caregivers to manipulate the patient without breaking the enclosure.
Claim(s) 15 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0139996 (Zheng).
In regards to claim 15, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Zheng does show in paragraph 38 different ways of attaching the portions (several of which can be considered releasable attachments like Velcro, straps, hook, and ties) and paragraph 45 states that frame members can be attached by retaining connectors or other conventional attachment mechanism, which the straps mentioned by Zheng are. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Zheng to attach the left and right side of panels as suggested by Zheng because it is one of several known methods of attaching the panels that would produce the same result of joining the panels together.
In regards to claim 21, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zheng also states that the panels are hingedly coupled (paragraphs 23 and 29; stitches act as hinge). As seen in figure 1A, the rear portion is hingedly coupled to the left portion and the top portion is that is attached to the right panel (paragraph 38). While Zheng does not explicitly state the hinge attachment between the top and right portion (Zheng give several examples of attachment but does not explicitly state hinge attachments or stitches, which can be covered by the “or the like”), Zheng does show in paragraph 23 that a hinge connection could be used to connect the panels. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Zheng to attach the top portion to the right portion as suggest by Zheng because it is one of several known methods of attaching the panels that would produce the same result of joining the panels together.
In regards to claim 22, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 21. It can also be seen if figure 1A that the first part forms a first ninety-degree angle and the second part would form a second ninety-degree angle where the top portion rests on top of the left portion.
In regards to claim 23, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zheng also discloses the presence of a base portion/floor (58) that is attached to the rear, front, left, and right portions using several different methods (paragraph 31). Zheng give several examples of attachment but does not explicitly state removable attachments, which can be covered by the “or the like”. While Zheng does not explicitly state releasable attachment, Zheng does show in paragraph 38 different ways of attaching the portions (several of which can be considered releasable attachments like Velcro, straps, hook, and ties). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Zheng releasably attach the base portion to left portion and the right portion as suggest by Zheng because it is one of several known methods of attaching the panels that would yield the same result of joining panels together.
In regards to claim 24, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 23. In addition, Zheng also states that the panels are hingedly coupled (paragraphs 23 and 29; stitches act as hinge). As seen in figure 1A, the rear portion is hingedly coupled to the left portion and the right portion (paragraph 38).
In regards to claim 25, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 24. Due to the fact that the term “portion” has arbitrary boundaries, the embodiment shown in figure 5 can have the borders of the defined portions drawn in a manner that satisfies the length limitations of the claim while still maintaining the designations of the panels due to the presence of connecting sheet material (110; paragraph 43) between the panels (the portions would include some combination of the panel and sheet material).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,523,973 A2 (Yuen) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 6,461,290 (Reichman et al., hereinafter Reichman).
In regards to claims 19-20, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 18 but does not state the presence of a through-opening being covered by a flexible cover. In a related area, Reichman discloses a collapsible isolation apparatus (title and abstract; figures 1, 2, 3, 14, 24, and 25). Of particular interest are the glove ports (150), a through-opening, shown in figure 3 with their respective gloves are attached to ports (column 9, line 22 – column 10, line 28) in order to allow caregivers to manipulate the patient without breaking the airtight barrier and releasing contaminants into the environment. Reichmann shows in figure 24 and 25 that the port covers used for the opening and that they are in pie-shaped pieces (column 10, lines 4-28). Figure 26 shows the device being collapsed into a carrier, which would make the cover for the opening flexible. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to include gloves and glove ports as taught by Reichman in the device of Yuen in order to allow caregivers to manipulate the patient without breaking the enclosure.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0139996 (Zheng) as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of EP 1,523,973 A2 (Yuen).
In regards to claim 26 Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 25 but does not state that the left, right, and rear portions comprise a rigid transparent panel. In a related area, Yuen discloses a patient isolation enclosure (see title and abstract). Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the left portion, the right portion, and the rear portion each comprise a rigid transparent side (paragraphs [0021 and [0026]] suggests the use of transparent material for components) in order to allow for visual examination of patients (paragraph [0007]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zheng to make the left, right, and rear portions made of transparent material, as taught by Yuen, in order to allow visualization of the subject being contained in the enclosure.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0294827 (Carr et al., hereinafter Carr) and US 4,275,719 (Mayer) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of US 6,461,290 (Reichman et al., hereinafter Reichman).
In regards to claim 34, Carr and Mayer disclose the limitations of claim 32. However, neither teach the presence of an air flow port cut through the flexible sheet. In a related area, Reichman discloses a collapsible isolation apparatus (title; abstract; figures 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10) that includes a ventilation port (203) cut into the flexible sheet that forms the chamber. Reichman states that the port is used to provide purified air to the interior of the housing to the head of a patient so that they feel less claustrophobic. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Carr and Mayer to include an air flow port as taught by Reichman in order to provide purified air to the interior of the housing to the head of a patient so that they feel less claustrophobic.
Claim(s) 36 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 1,523,973 (Yuen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0069495 (Ballantyne et al., hereinafter Ballantyne).
In regards to claims 36 and 37, Yuen discloses the limitations of claim 1 but do not state the presence or location of sensors. In a related area, Ballantyne discloses an isolation tent (title; abstract; paragraphs 129-265). Paragraph 162 in particular discloses the presence of sensors incorporated into the isolation tent body. Paragraphs 177-184 show that the sensor is used for verification of use and state of the isolation tent. Applicant has not given a reason how the location of the sensor provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the sensor of Ballantyne and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the location taught by Ballantyne or the claimed sheet location for performing the sensing function.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Yuen to include sensors as taught by Ballantyne in order to determine verification of use and state of the isolation chamber. It also would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device of Yuen and Ballantyne to obtain the invention as specified by claims 36 and 37 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Yuen and Ballantyne.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0178420 (Reis) discloses a structure with the limitations of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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 Marmor 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791