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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "10" and "11" have both been used to designate “opening/closing line”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "3" and "18" have both been used to designate “connection part”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “5” (“peripheral wall part”) and “8” (“rear wall portion 8”). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “6(5)”; “7(5)”; and “8(5)”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because paragraph [0041] of the instant publication refers to “Fig. 5A” however the figures do not show “Fig. 5A” but only “Fig. 5”.
The drawings are objected to because paragraph [0045] of the instant publication refers to “Fig. 8A” however the figures do not show “Fig. 8A” but only “Fig. 8”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “belt-like strip” (claim 3); the “carry-in/carry-out port that is opened/closed along an opening/closing line” (claim 8); and the “ozone gas-generating apparatus” (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the engagement portion is indirectly engaged with the upper part in the patient compartment as described in the specification (and described in claim 2). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “connection part” in claims 1 and 12; and “ozone gas-generating apparatus” in claim 12. A multitude of equivalent structures for “connection part” are found in paragraphs [0057] and [0084] of the instant publication.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connection means” in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-12 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 is directed to a “negative-pressure shield device”. However, claim 1 also appears to positively recite “a patient compartment of an ambulance” and “a stretcher mounted in the patient compartment” and “a ventilation opening provided in the patient compartment”. However, the disclosure does not appear to describe the shield device comprising a patient compartment of an ambulance; a stretcher mounted in the patient compartment; and a ventilation opening of the patient compartment, therefore the claim is indefinite. A suggested amendment is to structure the claim language such that the shield device is configured to be installed in a patient compartment of an ambulance; configured to cover a head of a patient on a stretcher; and a connection part that is configured to connect to a ventilation opening of the patient compartment.
Claim 1 at line 5 recites the limitation "the interior of the shield main body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 at line 2 recites the limitation "the front-to-rear direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 at line 5 recites the limitation "the upper part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the shield main body is suspended and supported in the patient compartment with the engagement portion directly or indirectly engaged with the upper part in the patient compartment,” which, as indicated above, appears to positively require the patient compartment. However (as also indicated above), the disclosure does not appear to describe the shield device comprising a patient compartment.
Claim 2 recites that the engagement portion is “indirectly engaged with the upper part in the patient compartment”. In light of the disclosure, while it is clear how an engagement portion would be directly engaged with a patient compartment, it is unclear how the engagement portion is indirectly engaged with the patient compartment.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "belt-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The specification does not further shown or define what would be considered to be “belt-like” or show such in an image to ascertain what would be considered to be “belt-like”.
Claim 4 recites “the shield main body is suspended and supported in the patient compartment with the engagement holes and a handrail provided on the upper part in the patient compartment,” which, as indicated above, appears to positively require the patient compartment (and a handrail thereof). However (as also indicated above), the disclosure does not appear to describe the shield device comprising a patient compartment.
Claim 4 recites “connected to each other” at lines 3-4. It is unclear which of the previously recited elements of claim 4 are being referred to as being “connected to each other”.
Claim limitation “connection means” (claim 4) 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. Paragraphs [0081] and [0057] of the instant publication appear to refer to various “means” for connections/engagement, however it is unclear if “connection means” is in reference to any of these, or if it is in reference to just paragraph [0081] as “connection part” (also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)), appears to refer to structures in paragraph [0057] as indicated above. And in light of such, it is also unclear if “connection means” in claim 4 is the same as or different than “connection part” recited 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.
Claim 5 at line 3 recites the limitation "the other open end". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the connection part….covering the ventilation opening,” which, as indicated above, appears to positively require the patient compartment (which comprises the ventilation opening as recited in claim 1). However (as also indicated above), the disclosure does not appear to describe the shield device comprising a patient compartment.
Claim 6 at line 2 recites the limitation "the position” and “the direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 at line 3 recites the limitation "the rear door side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 at line 3 recites the limitation "the patient compartment of the peripheral wall part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the patient compartment is not previously recited as part of the peripheral wall part.
In claim 8, it is unclear what defines a “carry-in/carry-out port”; as well as an “opening/closing line”. It is also unclear if “open/closed” implies both open and closed or if the port is configured to open and close.
Claim limitation “ozone gas-generating apparatus” (claim 12) 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. 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.
Claim 12 recites “another connection part…connects to an ozone gas-generating apparatus installed in the patient compartment” which, as indicated above, appears to positively require the patient compartment (which comprises the ozone gas-generating apparatus installed therein). However (as also indicated above), the disclosure does not appear to describe the shield device comprising a patient compartment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 at lines 2-3 recites that “a shield main body...covers at least the head of a patient on a stretcher” which is a positive recitation of human subject matter. A suggested amendment is -- a shield main body...configured to cover at least the head of a patient on a stretcher--.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hogan (U.S. Patent No. 5,061,235). Regarding claim 1, Hogan teaches a negative-pressure shield device (construed as such due to its composition of materials which act to “envelope and isolate the air space” – col. 6, lines 50-50-63) comprising:
a shield main body 16 that is configured to be installed in a patient compartment of an ambulance (col. 9, lines 66-67 – col. 10, lines 1-20 and 45-56; and col. 12, lines 42-62), comprises a ceiling part and a peripheral wall part (as shown in Fig. 6; also see col. 10, lines 55-68), and is configured to cover at least the head of a patient on a stretcher mounted in the patient compartment (Fig. 6), and
a connection part 54 that communicates with the interior of the shield main body and is capable of connecting to a ventilation opening provided in the patient compartment (col. 12, lines 64-68 – col. 13, lines 1-39).
Regarding claim 2, the ceiling part includes an engagement portion (“belt-like strip”) extending along the front-to-rear direction in the patient compartment (as shown in reproduction of Fig. 6 below), and the shield main body is configured to be suspended and supported in the patient compartment with the engagement portion configured to be directly or indirectly engaged with the upper part in the patient compartment (via support rings 52) (Fig. 6 and col. 12, lines 42-62).
[AltContent: textbox ( “belt-like strip”)][AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png])]
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 3, the engagement portion/belt-like strip (top, strip-like panel of ceiling as shown above), capable of extending along the front-to-rear direction in the patient compartment includes a plurality of engagement holes (of support rings 52) at a predetermined spacing (see Fig. 6 and col. 12, lines 42-62).
Regarding claim 4 and in view of its indefinite nature, the shield main body 16 is capable of being suspended and supported in the patient compartment via the “connection means” of the engagement holes (of support rings 52) connecting to rods/railing provided on the upper part in the patient compartment (Fig. 6 and col. 12, lines 42-62).
Regarding claim 5 and in view of its indefinite nature, the connection part 54 has a cylindrical shape with one open end covering an opening provided on the shield main body, and the other open end covering the ventilation opening (as shown in Fig. 6 and described at col. 12, lines 64-68 – col. 13, lines 1-39).
Regarding claim 6, the “connection part” (portholes) have flexibility, and the position and the direction of the other open end can be adjusted within a predetermined range (as described with respect to col. 12, lines 63-68 – col. 13, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 7, the shield main body 16 is configured of a size to accommodate a stretcher and a stretcher stand (Fig. 6 and col. 6, lines 50-68 – col. 7, lines 1-22).
Regarding claim 8 and in view of its indefinite nature, the shield main body 16 includes a carry-in/carry-out port (one of multiple sealable portholes 54) that is opened/closed along an opening/closing line (velcro seal) and is provided on the peripheral wall part as shown in Fig. 6 (col. 12, lines 63-68 – col. 13, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 9, at least the peripheral wall part is composed of a flexible sheet (fabric tent with walls as described at col. 7, lines 45-68 – col. 8, lines 1-52; and col. 10, lines 55-58 – col. 11, lines 1-25).
Regarding claim 10, the shield main body 16 is configured to be expandable/collapsible into a flat state (Fig. 6 shows flat panels in the expandable state; and as described at col. 10, lines 21-65 and col. 12, lines 25-41).
Regarding claim 11, the shield main body 16 includes an air intake (one of multiple sealable portholes 54) as shown in Fig. 6 or “air channels” (col. 12, lines 25-41; and lines 63-68 – col. 13, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 12 and in view of its indefinite nature, the shield main body 16 comprises another connection part that communicates with the interior of the shield main body (one of multiple sealable portholes 54 or “air channels”) and is configured to connected to an ozone gas-generating apparatus installed in the patient compartment (col. 12, lines 25-41; and lines 63-68 – col. 13, lines 1-18).
Conclusion
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