DETAILED ACTION
This action is a response to the filing on 6/17/2026. Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 14-16 and the cancellation of claim 3.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “inferior end” should be –inferior end;--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: “control unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
Based on Applicant’s specification, the control unit appears to be some generic hardware (element 116).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim currently recites open top and bottom sides. However, the specification does not disclose an open top side.
Due to the 112 issue of the claim, Examiner is interpreting the limitation with an open bottom side and closed top side.
Claims 2 and 4-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
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) 1, 4-6, 9-12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner).
In regards to claims 1, 9, and 10, Nguyen discloses a device that shields a patient and medical staff (title and abstract; figures 1 and 2A-2B; paragraphs [0006]-[0074] ). The device is comprised of the following components:
a stand extending vertically between a superior end and an inferior end (element 109; paragraphs [0046]-[0054]);
an open frame extending laterally from the superior end of the stand (elements 120, 110,125, 106, 107, and 403; paragraphs [0006]-[0074]; frame extends laterally from the superior end of 109);
an enclosure (element 108; shield wall) suspended from the frame and positioned at the superior end of the stand, the enclosure having an interior space bounded by a closed lateral sides a closed top side, and open bottom side (shield wall is suspended over the patient and has a closed top and lateral sides with open bottom to allow patient entry; see figure 2A);
wherein the lateral side of the enclosure comprises one or more access slots (arm insertion holes 118, 111, 112, and 113; paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
However, Nguyen does not disclose the presence of a blower having an inlet port and an exhaust port, the inlet port being fluidly connected to the interior space of the enclosure; wherein the blower comprises one or more filters between the inlet port and the exhaust port.
In a related area, Weidner discloses a system and method for protection/isolation against infections (title; abstract; paragraphs 20-32; figures 1-5). Paragraphs 20-32 and figures 1-5 show an enclosure with a blower unit with an inlet and exhaust port with the inlet port being fluidically connected to the interior space of the enclosure that uses a HEPA filter to eliminate and reduce potential sources of infection where it is placed between an inlet port and exhaust/outlet port. Note that the inlet port is fluidically connected to the interior space of the enclosure and would meet the limitations of the claim as there are no limitations specified that about where the inlet and exhaust ports are in relation to the interior space of the enclosure. Weidner states in paragraphs [0025]-[0027] that the blower with filter is used to sterilize air and maintain pressure levels in the isolation chambers. 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 Nguyen to include a blower as taught by Weidner in order to sterilize air and maintain pressure levels in the isolation chambers.
In regards to claim 4, Nguyen and Weidner disclose the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Nguyen shows that the enclosure (108) is attached to the frame (120) by connectors like suspension cords/ties (106), connector loops (125) and a hook (paragraph [0047]).
In regards to claim 5, Nguyen and Weidner disclose the limitations of claim 1. Nguyen further shows a different embodiment with wheels (116) at an inferior end in figure 8 in order to make it possible to roll the stand/frame from place to place (paragraph [0063]). Thus, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nguyen and Weidner to include wheeled legs as taught by Nguyen in order to make it possible to roll the stand/frame from place to place.
In regards to claim 6, Nguyen and Weidner disclose the limitations of claim 1. In addition, the specifics of the blower of Weidner discloses the presence of a control unit (switch 70 can be considered a piece of generic hardware) that powers and operates the blower (paragraph [0023]).
In regards to claims 11 and 12, Nguyen and Weidner disclose the limitations of claim 10. In another embodiment shown in figure 9, the insertion holes include a protective barrier with slits/apertures to allow for arms and objects access into the environment and allow for resealing of the openings (paragraph [0068]). 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 Nguyen and Weider to include the slits/apertures in the access slots as taught by Nguyen to allow for arms and objects access into the environment and allow for resealing of the openings.
In regards to claim 18, Nguyen and Weidner disclose the limitations of claim 1. It can also be seen in figure 2A, 2B, and 9 that the enclosure is sized to fit over the width of a hospital bed.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 1068257A (Potapenko).
In regards to claim 2, Nguyen and Weidner disclose the limitations of claim 1 but do not state that the stand has an adjustable height. In a related area, Potapenko teaches an air-vent device (See figs. 4-5; page 4, In 58-83) comprising:
a stand (collectively 33 "upstanding member", 37 "post", figs. 4-5) extending vertically between a superior end (See figs. 4-5; see top of member 33) and an inferior end (See figs. 4-5; see bottom of post 37);
an enclosure (collectively 32 "ceiling", 35 "air director", 36 "curtain", figs. 4-5) positioned at the superior end of the stand (See figs. 4-5), the enclosure having an interior space bounded by a generally closed top and lateral side and an open bottom side (See figs. 4-5; see how curtain 36, director 35 and ceiling 32 form an enclosure where ceiling 32 is the top, curtain 36 is the sides and the bottom is open); and
a blower (page 4, lines 68-71; See figs. 4-5) having an inlet port (See figs. 4-5; see opening at foot 34) and an exhaust port (See figs. 4-5; see perforated openings in ceiling 32), the inlet port being fluidly connected to the interior space of the enclosure (See fig. 5; opening in foot 34 is in direct communication with interior space below ceiling 32).
Potapenko further shows wherein the stand (collectively 33 "upstanding member", 37 "post", figs. 4-5) has an adjustable height (page 4, lines 80-83; See figs. 4-5) where this adjustment is used to enable movement and transfer of 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 Nguyen and Weidner to have a stand with an adjustable height, as taught by Potapenko in order to enable movement and transfer of the enclosure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,601,031 (Abel)
In regards to claim 7, Nguyen and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. However, Nguyen and Weidner do not specifically teach wherein the blower is configured to move between about 50 cubic feet of air per minute (CFM) to about 150 CFM. In a related area of isolation units, Abel discloses an isolation room (title; abstract; figures 1 and 2; columns 1 and 2). Abel states in column 2, lines 35-60 that the blower has a speed that moves air from 30 to 100 ft per minute, which falls within the claimed range. Abel states that this speed allows for air to be changed while being imperceptible to the patient. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Nguyen and Weidner to use the blower configuration of Abel in order to move air through the isolation unit in a manner that is imperceptible to the patient.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,074,894 (Nelson).
In regards to claim 8, Nguyen and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. However, they do not specifically teach wherein the blower has a fan speed between about 500 revolutions per minute (RPM) and about 5000 RPM. In a related area of isolation chambers, Nelson discloses an apparatus that isolates contagious respiratory hospital patients (title and abstract; column 3, line 54-column 9, line 44). Nelson discloses the use of a blower that rotates at 1075 RPM and also states that 1075 RPM is the preferred rotation speed for this particular unit, thus suggesting that different blower types would have different preferred fan speeds and would make them design considerations. 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 Nguyen and Weidner to use the claimed fan speed as taught by Nelson because design decisions regarding the fan speed for the blower fall within the ordinary skill in the art of one designing an air-vent device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate fan speed as claimed thereby ensuring enough air is supplied to the patient.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of WO 2006/092561 A1 to Timothy Dee (hereinafter 'Dee').
In regards to claim 13, Nguyen and Weidner teaches the device of claim 10 but does not specifically teach wherein each access slot is covered by a flap. In a related area of isolation enclosures, Dee teaches an air-vent device (See fig. 1; page 3, lines 22-27) comprising an enclosure (10 "canopy", fig. 1; page 4, lines 1-5) comprising an access slot (page 4, lines 1-5 "aperture"; See fig. 1; see opening for flap 21) covered by a flap (21 "flap", fig. 1; page 4, lines 1-5). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to use the access slot with the flap of Dee on the enclosure of Nguyen and Weidner in order to allow ingress or egress of a caretaker without exposing a large portion of the interior space to the exterior.
In regards to claim 17, Nguyen and Weidner teach the device of claim 1 but do not specifically teach wherein the enclosure is constructed from a material selected from the group consisting of: polyvinyl, polyethylene, polyvinylchloride, and polyester. In a related area of isolation enclosures, Dee teaches an air-vent device (See fig. 3; page 5, In 27 page 7, lines 10) comprising an enclosure (40 "canopy", fig. 3) constructed from polyvinylchloride (page 5, lines 27-30). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to use the polyvinylchloride enclosure of Dee on part of the enclosure of Nguyen and Weidner in order to prevent excess contaminated air from passing through the lateral sides of the enclosure.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 3,345,996 (Sadove et al., hereinafter Sadove).
In regards to claims 14-15, Nguyen and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. However, Nguyen and Weidner do not specifically teach wherein the enclosure has a height between about 3 feet and about 10 feet and a width or diameter between about 2 feet and about 6 feet. In a related area, Sadove discloses a portable isolation room (title; abstract; figures 1-5; column 2, line 7-column 4, line 6). Sadove states in column 4, lines 1-5 an example (not a limitation) of dimensions of an isolation chamber with a length of 10 feet, width of 5.5 feet, and a height of 6.5 feet, which falls within the claimed ranges. This suggests that isolation chambers are design considerations dependent on patient and physician needs (column 1, lines 21-54). 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 Nguyen and Weidner to arrive at the enclosure dimensions of Sadove, in order to have an appropriate height and width of the enclosure based on the patient and physician needs.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0315757 (Nguyen et al., hereinafter Nguyen) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,461,290 (Reichman et al., hereinafter Reichman)
In regards to claim 16, Nguyen and Weidner teach the device of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the enclosure has a thickness between about 0.001 inches and about 0.024 inches. In a related area, Reichman discloses a collapsible isolation apparatus (title; abstract; column 6, line 30-column 14, line 33). Reichman states in column 6, lines 30-65 dimensions of the isolation apparatus, where the thickness of the enclosure 0.020 inches, which is inside the claimed range but can be reduced to lower the cost of the plastic used. 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 Nguyen and Weidner to design an enclosure thickness of 0.020 inches or less, as taught by Reichman, to lower the cost of the plastic used in the enclosure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights