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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16-19, 21-25, 27-29, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16-19, 21-25, and 27-29, line 1: “A portable” should apparently read --The portable--.
In claim 2, line 2: “the bed” should apparently read --the bed or chair--.
In claim 24, there should be a period at the end of the claim.
In claim 31, line 3: “a portable” should apparently read --the portable--.
In claim 31, line 4: “the bed” should apparently read --the bed or chair--.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16-19, 21-25, 27-29, and 31 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 1 recites the limitation “a stowed state and a deployed state, in which the enclosure portion substantially shields over an end of the bed or chair” in lines 2-3. It is not clear which state the “in which” refers to. For sake of compact prosecution, this will be taken herein to refer to the deployed state.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “substantially shields” in line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite amount of shielding are not readily apparent.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “substantially shield” in line 2. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite amount of shielding are not readily apparent.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation “an end of the bed or chair” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the previously recited end or to be a separate end. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the end of the bed or chair--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “extends substantially across” in line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite amount of extension are not readily apparent.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a plurality of complementarily arched resilient rods” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the previously recited resilient rod of each support member or to be separate components.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “substantially sealed” in line 3. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite amount of sealing are not readily apparent.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the claim" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should apparently read --the clamp--.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “substantially shields” in line 6. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite amount of shielding are not readily apparent.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16-19, 21-25, 27-29, and 31 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 25, 27, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakata et al. (JP 2014/013142 A; hereinafter known as “Sakata”).
Regarding claim 1, Sakata discloses a portable isolation unit 10 for use with a bed 14 or chair (Abstract), comprising: an enclosure portion 18 configurable between a stowed state and a deployed state, in which the enclosure portion substantially shields over an end of the bed or chair (enclosure portion is a transparent flexible shielding film, with wall portions that drape/hang downwards in the deployed state; wall portions may be wound/rolled/lifted up, which is taken to be a stowed state); a ventilation unit 20 configured for applying air pressure to an area beneath the enclosure portion when the enclosure portion is in the deployed state (fan filter unit for maintaining negative/positive pressure); and a portable frame 16 to which the enclosure portion and ventilation unit are mounted (frame assembly, enclosure and fan filter unit are both securely attached thereto).
Regarding claim 2, Sakata discloses that the enclosure portion does not form an air-tight seal with the bed (e.g., adjustable gap between bed surface and enclosure).
Regarding claim 3, Sakata discloses that the enclosure portion is configured to substantially shield over an end of the bed or chair so as to be positioned over at least a head portion of a user during use (e.g., Figs. 7-8), and wherein the enclosure portion comprises a sheet cover held in place by one or more support members (flexible sheet, can be held in place via hook and loop fasteners).
Regarding claim 10, Sakata discloses that the sheet cover comprises a skirt portion, which is dimensioned to extend below a support member towards the bed or chair during use (Figs. 7-8).
Regarding claim 11, Sakata discloses that the portable frame is an upright frame 16b/c having a portable base 16a and the upright frame is configured for coupling with the enclosure portion (Fig. 1; base is on casters; upright frame has the enclosure portion attached thereto).
Regarding claim 25, Sakata discloses that the ventilator comprises a fan unit and a filter unit, wherein the filter unit is configured to filter airflow entering or exiting the fan unit (fan filter unit).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Sakata discloses that the ventilation unit is configured to provide negative or positive air pressure to an area beneath the enclosure portion when the enclosure portion is in the deployed state (to provide negative or positive pressure).
Regarding claim 31, Sakata discloses a method of deploying a portable pressurized chamber over a head portion of a user on a bed or chair (Abstract; Figs. 1, 7, 8), the method involves the steps of: providing a portable isolation unit 10 according to claim 1; locating the portable frame to or proximate a head end of the bed (Figs. 7, 8); adjusting the enclosure portion to the deployed state so that the enclosure portion substantially shields over the head portion of the user during use (Figs. 7, 8); and activating the ventilation unit to apply negative or positive air pressure to an area under the deployed enclosure portion (fan filter unit to apply negative or positive pressure).
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 16-18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0238264 A1; hereinafter known as “Kerns”).
Regarding claim 1, Kerns discloses a portable isolation unit 100 for use with a bed or chair 102 (Abstract; [0037]), comprising: an enclosure portion 120 configurable between a stowed state and a deployed state, in which the enclosure portion substantially shields over an end of the bed or chair (Figs. 1A-G; [0045]-[0047]; [0056]); a ventilation unit 112 configured for applying air pressure to an area beneath the enclosure portion when the enclosure portion is in the deployed state ([0050]; [0055]; [0064]); and a portable frame 118 to which the enclosure portion and ventilation unit are mounted ([0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Kerns discloses that the enclosure portion is configured to substantially shield over an end of the bed or chair so as to be positioned over at least a head portion of a user during use (e.g., Fig. 1G), and wherein the enclosure portion comprises a sheet cover held in place by one or more support members ([0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Kerns discloses that each support member is a resilient rod 204/206 configured in the form of an arch for supporting the sheet cover, and the rod extends substantially across a width of the enclosure portion ([0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Kerns discloses that the portable frame is an upright frame having a portable base and the upright frame is configured for coupling with the enclosure portion (Fig. 2F; [0092]).
Regarding claim 16, Kerns discloses that a wall member is sealably coupled to the mounting frame so as to create a substantially sealed backing member for mounting the enclosure portion ([0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Kerns discloses that the mounting frame and/or the wall member is provided with an opening for sealably receiving a conduit portion which is coupled to the ventilation unit during use ([0055]; [0057]).
Regarding claim 18, Kerns discloses that the opening is located at or proximate a part of the mounting frame and/or the wall member that is furthest from a head portion of a user during use (e.g., Fig. 1G).
Regarding claim 29, Kerns discloses that the ventilation unit is provided with a portable power source, which is mountable to the portable frame ([0059]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerns as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Slaker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0056489 A1; hereinafter known as “Slaker”).
Regarding claim 7, Kerns discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the enclosure portion comprises a plurality of complementarily arched resilient rods spaced along the sheet cover, and wherein respective ends of the arched rods are conjoined or located proximate each other so as to create a foldable hood. Slaker discloses a similar portable isolation unit (Abstract) comprising an enclosure portion comprises a plurality of complementarily arched resilient rods spaced along the sheet cover, and wherein respective ends of the arched rods are conjoined or located proximate each other so as to create a foldable hood in order to provide access, fit/mount in a variety of applications/environments, and be more transportable (Figs. 6, 7; [0010]; [0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kerns with such a foldable hood, as taught by Slaker, in order to provide access, fit/mount in a variety of applications/environments, and be more transportable.
Regarding claim 19, Kerns discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the portable frame comprises a backing support member configured to support the enclosure portion in the deployed state ([0045]; [0085]) and is configured to couple the portable frame to the bed or chair ([0037]). Kerns fails to disclose a clamp configured to be mounted to the backing support member to perform the coupling. Slaker discloses a similar portable isolation unit (Abstract) comprising a clamp mounted on a support member to couple a portable frame to a bed or chair in order to allow the unit to be attached to a bed or chair ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kerns with such a clamp, as taught by Slaker, in order to attach the portable frame to the bed or chair.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kerns and Slaker discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kerns further discloses that the backing support member is provided with an opening to which the ventilation unit or a conduit portion of which is mounted thereto ([0055]; [0057]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Kerns and Slaker discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Kerns further discloses that the opening is located at or proximate a part of the backing support member that is furthest from a head portion of a user during use (e.g., Fig. 1G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a clamp comprising a bracket having one or more hooks configured to be slideably receivable by a frame of the bed or chair so as to secure the clamp in position by friction fit, in combination with the other recited components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791