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 .
Drawings
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:
-Fig. 1A contains element 55 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 1B contains element 70 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 1C contains element 31 and 33 which are not found within the specification.
-Fig. 2A contains element 72 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 2E contains element 90 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 2G contains element 105 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 2H contains element 110 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 3B contains elements 136, 185, 190, 195 which are not found within the specification.
-Fig. 4B contains elements 252, 260, 264, 265 which are not found within the specification.
-Fig. 5B contains element 290 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 5D contains element 300 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 5G contains element 315 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 6B contains element 357 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 12A contains elements 435, 440 which are not found within the specification.
-Fig. 13A contains element 470 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 13B contains element 480 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 14B contains element 505 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 15A contains element 515 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 15B contains element 520 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 16A contains element 530 which is not found within the specification.
-Fig. 16B contains elements 550A,B and 555 which are not found within the specification.
-Fig. 16C contains elements 565, 560, 570 which is not found within the specification.
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 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:
-[Pg 11, lines 31] reference element 155 which is not found in the drawings.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
-Line 1 recites “a plurality of walls and ceiling”. Examiner recommends amending to –a plurality of walls and a ceiling—
-Lines 4-5 recite “and the coupling arranged to provide an airtight seal about the door”. Examiner recommends amending to –and the coupling is arranged to provide an airtight seal about the doorway—
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-[Pg. 7, line 3] recites “Ass will be.” Examiner recommends amending to – As will be—
-[Pg. 11, line 5] recites “m56.” Examiner recommends amending to –56—
-[Pg. 16, line 5] recites “the the isolated room.” Examiner recommends amending to –the isolated room—
-[Pg. 16, line 12] recites “leak of of.” Examiner recommends amending to –leak of—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “and ceiling” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –and a ceiling—
-Claim 1 recites “and second door” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –and a second door—
-Claim 1 recites “the doors sealing engagement” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the doors in sealing engagement—
-Claim 1 recites “the walls;” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of walls; and—
-Claim 1 recites “chamber;” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –chamber; wherein—
-Claim 1 recites “said coupling arranged” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –and said coupling is arranged—
-Claim 4 recites “said walls” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –said plurality of walls—
-Claim 4 recites “so as to fit” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –to fit—
-Claim 5 recites “said walls and ceiling” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –said plurality of walls and ceiling—
-Claim 7 recites “the doors, walls” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the first and second doors, the plurality of walls—
-Claim 7 recites “so as to provide” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –to provide—
-Claim 9 recites “so as to operate” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –to operate—
-Claim 10 recites “so as to operate” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –to operate—
-Claim 11 recites “the doors” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the first and second doors—
-Claim 12 recites “the isolating chamber” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the isolation chamber—
-Claim 12 recites “localised ‘sinks’” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –localised sinks—
-Claim 13 recites “into the patient room, that the air is filtered and then returned” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –into the patient room, such that the air is filtered and then returned—
-Claim 14 recites “the FFU” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the fan filter unit—
-Claim 14 recites “the vaporized hydrogen peroxide” in lines 4 and 5. Examiner recommends amending to –the flow of vaporized hydrogen peroxide—
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
-Claim 9 recites “control system ” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to control the fan filter system. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 14 recites “vapour generator” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is for generating a flow of vaporized hydrogen peroxide. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
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 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 1-14 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 “said coupling” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 recites “the first doorway” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the first door—
-Claim 3 recites “the first door corridor” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “the articulation” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “said chamber” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is referring to the isolation chamber or the internal chamber.
-Claim 5 recites “said sealing of the doorway” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –said coupling of the doorway—
-Claim 6 recites “one door open” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “a first and second door” originally referenced in claim 1, line 3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 7 recites “may be transparent” in line 2. It is unclear whether this limitation is required by the claim due to the recitation of “may be”. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 9 recites “the fan filter system” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 9 recites “high flow rate for high air exchange” in line 3. It is unclear what encompasses a high flow rate for high air exchange based on this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify what constitutes a high flow rate for high air exchange as required by the claim.
-Claim 10 recites “low flow rate to maintain a differential pressure” in line 2. It is unclear what encompasses a low flow rate to maintain differential pressure based on this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify what constitutes a low flow rate as required by the claim.
-Claim 11 recites “entry / exit” in line 2. It is unclear whether this limitation requires detection of entry and exit or entry or exit of personnel. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “decontamination” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different as “decontamination cycle” originally referenced in claim 11 lines 2-3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 12 recites “the distal end” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 12 recites “more localised ‘sinks’” in line 2. It is unclear what the term “more” is referencing since localised sinks were not previously referenced. Further clarification should be provided. It is also unclear whether this limitation is referring to areas or pockets throughout the transport chamber that include redirection of air, a structure that would cause a redirection of air, or a separate embodiment. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 13 recites “the patient room” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 13 recites “that the air is filtered and then returned” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by this recitation in reference to the detection of air directed into the room. Further clarification should be provided to determine whether this limitation requires that filters air be detected and returned, whether the air directed into the room is directed and then subsequently filters and returned or whether this includes a separate embodiment.
-Claim 14 recites “sealing outer doors and opening inner doors” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether outer and inner doors are the same or different from the first and second door originally referenced in claim 1, line 3. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 14 recites “the room” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim limitations “control system” and “vapour generator” 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. The specification provides reference to a control system on page 8, however, no corresponding structure associated with this element is disclosed. The specification also provides reference to a vapor generator on page 17, however, no corresponding structure outside of “a standalone machine” or “a hermetically sealed close loop system” associated with this element is disclosed. 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 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.
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.
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:
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arts (U.S. 20070130844).
Regarding Claim 1, Arts teaches an isolation chamber comprising: a plurality of walls and ceiling defining an internal chamber; [Fig. 1A, elements 14 (walls), 14B (inner ceiling), 21 (space)] a first and second door, [0040] and [Fig. 1A, element 30F (port in outer wall), 32F (port in an inner wall)] the doors sealing engagement with the walls; [0040; “ Each of the systems 130 is a conventional air lock system,…the system 130A constitutes a sealed passageway having doors that can be opened into the space 21 … the positive pressure in the wall space 26.”] a fan filter unit arranged to extract air from the internal chamber; [0009; “The air blower system preferably filters any air supplied to the isolation shelter, and also filters any air exiting the isolation shelter before its release to the external environment.”] said isolation chamber is arranged to couple to a doorway, said coupling arranged to provide an airtight seal about said doorway [0040]—reference to conventional air lock system.
Regarding Claim 2, Arts teaches wherein the first doorway is on a first side of the doorway and the second door is on a second side of the doorway [0040]—discloses pressurized airlock entry/egress system 130A that extends from inner space to outside environment. Also referred to as a passageway in [0041].
Regarding Claim 3, Arts teaches wherein the fan filter unit is arranged to supply air into the internal chamber from an external area corresponding to the first door corridor [0028]—describes filtered air supplied to the isolation space, 21, and exhausted from the space.
Regarding Claim 6, Arts teaches wherein the first and second doors are arranged to limit one door open at a time [0040]—introduces the use of a waiting interval required between the opening and closing of one door and opening and closing of the opposing door.
Regarding Claim 9, Arts teaches further including a control system in communication with the fan filter unit, [0036]—mention of incorporation of a conventional controller, said control system arranged to control the fan filter system so as to operate at a high flow rate for high air exchange and differential pressure to purge contaminated air [0036]—describes the controller controlling the volume of air supplied to the port to maintain a desired pressure in the isolation space, and [0038]—mentions creating the desired positive and negative pressures in the system.
Regarding Claim 10, Arts teaches wherein the control system is further arranged to control the fan filter system so as to operate at a low flow rate to maintain a differential pressure [0036] and [0038].
Regarding Claim 12, Arts teaches wherein the control system is arranged to selectively operate the fan filter unit to create more localised 'sinks' which act to pull in contaminated air before it reaches the distal end of the isolating chamber [0042]—describes the blower system which includes the controller recirculating air through a HEPA filter to generate desired air exchanges per hour. These air exchanges are interpreted to be the localized sinks since it describes these exchanges as mechanisms for the removal of contaminants. An air exchange rate could be selected to ensure that contaminated air is prevented from reaching the distal end of the chamber.
Regarding Claim 13, Arts teaches wherein the control system is arranged to detect if air is being directed into the patient room, [0036]—includes reference to sensors that monitor flow of air through ports, that the air is filtered and then returned [0028]-discloses filtering the air via HEPA or other preferred embodiment, and then returning exhausted and filter air to the space.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arts (U.S. 20070130844) in view of Kalnay (U.S. 20050279047).
Regarding Claim 4, Arts is silent on wherein any one or a combination of said walls and ceiling are articulated and arranged to expand or retract so as to fit within said doorway. Kalnay teaches wherein any one or a combination of said walls and ceiling are articulated and arranged to expand or retract so as to fit within said doorway [Fig. 3, element 106 (walls), 101 (ceiling/threshold), 104 (passage partitions/door)] and [0073]—describes the telescopic capability of the structure to expand the passageway to and from the antechamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an articulating structure to expand or retract the walls and ceiling to fit within said doorway as taught by Kalnay to enclose a sealed region as suggested by Arts, as Arts discusses the prevention of contaminant escape from an isolation space to the external environment [Abstract] with Kalnay because Kalnay teaches the use of the structure and expandable features to accommodate emergency situations and protect from radiation, chemical, biological and other harmful outbreaks [0003].
Regarding Claim 5, Arts is silent on wherein the articulation includes an insertion of a portion of said chamber through said doorway, said sealing of the doorway arranged at intermediate portions of said walls and ceiling. Kalnay teaches wherein the articulation includes an insertion of a portion of said chamber through said doorway, [Fig. 3, element 102 (sealing adapter)] said sealing of the doorway arranged at intermediate portions of said walls and ceiling [0073; “One or both threshold ends have a coupling device by which like units of the invention can be joined 103.”]—where “like units” are interpreted to be portions of the walls and ceilings of the structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an articulation including an insertion of a portion of said chamber through the doorway and sealing of the doorway at intermediate portions of the walls as ceiling as taught by Kalnay to prevent unwanted contaminant leakage as suggested by Arts, as Arts discusses the use of multiple spaces and impermeable seals at all connections of the walls for each space [0024] with Kalnay because Kalnay teaches the use of this configuration to create an airtight chamber by coupling multiple chambers to one another [0073].
Regarding Claim 7, Arts is silent on wherein any one or a combination of the doors, walls or ceiling may be transparent so as to provide visibility through the doorway to an observer within the chamber and/or external to the isolation chamber. Kalnay teaches wherein any one or a combination of the doors, walls or ceiling may be transparent so as to provide visibility through the doorway to an observer within the chamber and/or external to the isolation chamber [0072]—describes the passage partitions being made of transparent materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use transparent building materials to provide visibility into the chamber as taught by Kalnay to maintain a positive pressure in the space as suggested by Arts, as Arts discusses the shelter including windows [0027] with Kalnay because Kalnay teaches the use of antechambers in demanding environments requiring airlocks [0006].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arts (U.S. 20070130844) in view of Weidner (U.S. 20050050804).
Regarding Claim 8, Arts is silent on wherein the fan filter unit is arranged to be selectively retracted. Weidner teaches wherein the fan filter unit is arranged to be selectively retracted [0029]—reference to the portable air-filtering unit being propelled into position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retractable FFU as taught by Weidner to supply air to the isolation space as suggested by Arts, as Arts discusses maintaining a positive pressure within the space [0033] with Weidner because Weidner teaches maintaining and monitoring pressure within the chamber [0027].
Claim(s) 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arts (U.S. 20070130844) in view of Hill (U.S. 20130216438).
Regarding Claim 11, Arts is silent on wherein the control system is arranged to detect entry / exit of personnel to the isolation chamber and to commence a decontamination cycle, including locking the doors for pre-determined time periods corresponding to decontamination. Hill teaches wherein the control system is arranged to detect entry / exit of personnel to the isolation chamber and to commence a decontamination cycle, [0040], including locking the doors for pre-determined time periods corresponding to whether a person is located in the decontamination area [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an detection system to trigger locking the doors during a decontamination cycle as taught by Hill to provide passage of an individual through a sealed passageway as suggested by Arts, as Arts discusses the use of a conventional airlock entry/egress system [0040] with Hill because Hill teaches this interlocking system to prevent access during a decontamination cycle [0013].
Regarding Claim 14, Arts is silent on further including a vapour generator for generating a flow of vaporised hydrogen peroxide, [0007; “A vaporized hydrogen peroxide generator is connected to the duct for introducing vaporized hydrogen peroxide into the stream of gas at the third location.”]
such that the control system is arranged to commence a room decontamination process by sealing outer doors and opening inner doors [0013] and then running the FFU to pass the vaporised hydrogen peroxide through the FFU and distributing the vaporised hydrogen peroxide into the room [0041; “vaporized hydrogen peroxide in chamber 12 and door 52 is locked are provided on the exterior of enclosure 10.”] and [0053]—describes the hydrogen peroxide fed through the conduit and into circulating air blown by the blower to bring vaporized H2O2 into the chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a hydrogen peroxide decontamination system to commence a decontamination process while interfacing with interlocking doors and an FFU as taught by Hill to isolate persons from toxic vapors or biological/radiological contaminants as suggested by Arts, as Arts discusses the use of the system to prevent airborne contamination within the shelter [0005] with Hill because Hill teaches decontamination of the unit safely to avoid any situation in which the room is occupied by a user [0051].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Petrov (U.S. 20200069833)-includes reference to detecting users prior to running a decontamination cycle
-Kim (U.S. 20210172620)-references a pop-up/retractable fan
-Orr (U.S. 4949714)-discusses transparency aspects of the invention and discloses a folded fan associated with a filter unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791