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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 8 and 14-16 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.
Claims 8 and 14-16 use the term “about” with a range. Usage of the term “about” with a range makes the claim unclear as it cannot be determined what degree outside of the range is encompassed by the term “about”.
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) 1-6, 9-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1068257A (Potapenko) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner).
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, 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 does not specifically teach wherein the blower comprises one or more filters between the inlet port and the exhaust port. However, Potapenko does teach that the blower comprises one or more sterilizing means (page 4, lines 68-93) between the inlet port and the exhaust port (See figs. 4-5).
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 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.
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 Potapenko to use a filter between the inlet and exhaust ports as shown by Weidner in order to eliminate and reduce potential sources of infection.
Regarding Claim 2, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. 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).
Regarding Claim 3, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. Potapenko further shows wherein the enclosure (collectively 32 "ceiling", 35 "air director", 36 "curtain", figs. 4-5) is suspended from a frame (See fig. 5; see horizontal portion of upstanding member 33; page 4, lines 71-75) extending from the superior end of the stand (See figs. 4-5).
Regarding Claim 4, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 3. Potapenko further shows wherein the enclosure is attached to the frame by connectors (See figs. 4-5; page 4, lines 71-75; connected using some sort of rotatable connector) but does not specifically teach wherein the connector is selected from the group consisting of: rubber rings, ties, clips, cables, rubber bands, hooks, and loops. Weidner further states in paragraph 20 that the enclosure is attached by suitable means such as tie strips, band loops and self-locking bands. However, rubber rings, ties, clips, cables, rubber bands, hooks, and loops are all extremely common connector features to one practicing routine experimentation and design principles. 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 Potapenko and Weidner to use a connector incorporating a rubber rings, ties, clips, cables, rubber bands, hooks, or loops as taught by Weidner as these are considered suitable attachment mechanisms that produce the same result of attaching an enclosure to a frame/stand.
Regarding Claim 5, Potapenko and Weidner teaches the device of claim 1. Potapenko further teaches wherein the stand (collectively 33 "upstanding member", 37 "post", figs. 4-5) comprises wheeled legs at the inferior end (page 4, lines 75-80).
Regarding Claim 6, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. However, the embodiment of Potapenko modified by Weidner does not specifically teach wherein the stand further comprises a control unit configured to power and operate the blower. In a further embodiment, Potapenko teaches that a blower (16 "blower", fig. 1) may comprise a control unit (page 3, lines 23-42 "variable speed motor") configured to power and operate the blower (intended use: page 3, lines 23-42). Accordingly, 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 Potapenko and Weidner to use the control unit of the second embodiment on the blower of the first embodiment in order to allow the blower to be operated at different speeds to support the comfortability of the patient.
Regarding Claim 10, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. Potapenko further shows wherein the lateral side of the enclosure (36 "curtain" fig. 4) comprises one or more access slots (page 4, lines 94-99; when curtain only partially encloses the bed, an access slot in the form of a slit will be formed between the two ends of the curtain 36).
Regarding Claim 11, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 10, wherein the access slots are slits formed in the enclosure (page 4, lines 94-99; when curtain only partially encloses the bed, an access slot in the form of a slit will be formed between the two ends of the curtain 36).
Regarding Claim 18, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. Potapenko further teaches wherein the enclosure (collectively 32 "ceiling", 35 "air director", 36 "curtain", figs. 4-5) is sized to fit over a width of a hospital bed (page 4, lines 94-99), a hospital gurney, a hospital stretcher, an ambulance stretcher, a chair, a bench, a wheelchair, an operating table, or an instrument tray.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1068257A (Potapenko) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 3,601,031 (Abel)
Regarding Claim 7, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. However, Potapenko 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 Potapenko 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 GB 1068257A (Potapenko) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 5,074,894 (Nelson).
Regarding Claim 8, Potapenko 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 Potapenko 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) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1068257A (Potapenko) 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').
Regarding Claim 12, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 10 but do not specifically teach wherein the access slots are apertures formed in the enclosure. In 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) in the form of an aperture in the enclosure to enable access (See 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 aperture access slot of Dee on the enclosure of Potapenko and Weidner in order to allow ingress or egress of a caretaker without exposing a large portion of the interior space to the exterior.
Regarding Claim 13, Potapenko 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 Potapenko and Weidner in order to allow ingress or egress of a caretaker without exposing a large portion of the interior space to the exterior.
Regarding Claim 17, Potapenko 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 Potapenko 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 GB 1068257A (Potapenko) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 3,345,996 (Sadove et al., hereinafter Sadove).
Regarding Claims 14 -15, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1. However, Potapenko 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 Potapenko 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 GB 1068257A (Potapenko) in view of US 2005/0050804 (Weidner) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 6,461,290 (Reichman et al., hereinafter Reichman)
Regarding Claim 16, Potapenko and Weidner teach the device of claim 1, but does 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 design an enclosure thickness of 0.020 inches or less to lower the cost of the plastic used in the enclosure.
Conclusion
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