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
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 “incision pieces are rolled into the detachable cap” 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters:
-230(231), have both been used to designate a thermometer and a connection portion,
-300(310), have both been used to designate a detachable means and an attachment/detachment protrusion,
-300(320), have both been used to designate detachable means and an attachment/detachment holes,
-230(232), have both been used to designate a non-contact thermometer and a sensor,
-230(233), have both been used to designate a non-contact thermometer and a handle,
-221(221a) have both been used to designate an opening means (incision line) and an incision pieces.
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 the length of the abstract exceeds 150 words and includes language such as “means” or “said.”
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).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “A test booth for collecting virus samples having an examination window” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –A test booth for collecting virus samples, the test booth having an examination window—
-Claim 1 recites “wherein the opening means” in line 16. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the opening means—
-Claim 1 recites “the booth” in lines 20 and 22. Examiner recommends amending to –the test booth—
-Claim 2 recites “wherein, when” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein, when—
-Claim 3 recites “wherein, as” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein, as—
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 1 recites “opening means” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to be opened to guide a sample collection swab. According to the specification the opening means includes an incision line [Pg. 18] and equivalents thereof.
- Claim 4 recites “detachable means” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to attach or detach the examination window from the through hole. According to the specification the detachable means includes attachment/detachment protrusions [Pg. 11] and equivalents thereof.
- Claim 6 recites “moving means” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to move a space part from a central control building through the moving means. 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 1-6 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 “comprising a space part” in line 2. It is unclear whether this recitation is referring specifically to the examination window including the space part or the test booth comprising the space part. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 1 recites “is blocked” in line 3. It is unclear which component this recitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to the space, the tester, the window or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “has a window wall” in line 4. It is unclear which component this recitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to the space, the tester, the window or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “an examination window” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from an examination window originally referenced in claim 1, lines 1-2.
-Claim 1 recites “a swab entry/exit hole” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether this limitation requires that the swab be able to enter and exit through the hole or enter or exit through the hole. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 1 recites “having a passage” in line 9. It is unclear which component this recitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to the space, the holes, the window or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “a swab entry/exit hole” in lines 11-12. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a swab entry/exit hole originally referenced in claim 1, lines 7-8.
-Claim 1 recites “having an opening means” in line 13. It is unclear which component this recitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to the space part, the holes, the window or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “a sample collection swab” in lines 13-14. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a sample collection swab tool originally introduced in claim 1, line 10.
-Claim 1 recites “the passage of the swab entry/exit hole in the space part” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “one direction toward the passage of the swab entry/exit hole in the space part” in lines 17-18. It is unclear which direction is required per this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this includes a direction towards the space part relative to the opening means, away from the space part relative to the opening means or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “when the opening means is not required” in line 18. It is unclear whether or not this limitation is required since claim 1, line 13 positively recites and therefore requires “an opening means.” Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this limitation is required per the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “a fitting portion…is formed…and a handle part…is formed” in lines 19-22. It is unclear whether these limitations are definite structures required by the claim or not.
-Claim 1 recites “an outside” in line 19. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from an outside originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 1 recites “connected thereto” in line 21. It is unclear what thereto is referring to. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to the fitting portion, examination window, booth or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 2 recites “a sample collection swab” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the sample collection swab originally referenced in claim 1, line 13-14.
-Claim 3 recites “sample collection swab is formed on the sample collection swab” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is meant by this recitation. Further clarification should be provided to determine whether this includes reference to a diameter forming on the swab or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 3 recites “a swab entry/exit hole” in line 6. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a swab entry/exit hole originally referenced in claim 1, lines 7-8.
-Claim 4 recites “an outside” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from an outside originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 4 recites “a subject” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a subject originally referenced in claim 1, line 4.
-Claim 4 recites “the detachable means” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “an inside and outside” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from an inside originally referenced in claim 1, line 21 and an outside originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 5 recites “when necessary” in line 8. It is unclear what is required per this claim limitation and whether installation of the non-contact thermometer is required. Further clarification should identify situations where the non-contact thermometer should be installed inside the examination window through the connection portion.
-Claim 6 recites “a central control building” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not this element is required based on its corresponding positive recitation within this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this element is required as part of the test booth or whether this includes a different requirement.
-Claim 6 recites “wherein a space part is….moved from a central control building” in lines 1-3. It is unclear from this recitation how a structural element is to be moved from one location to another. Further clarification should be provided to define whether the space part is a structural element as recited in claim 1, lines 5-6, whether this is referring to an atmosphere of an internal space of the device, or whether this is referring to a separate embodiment.
Claim limitation “moving means” 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 disclosure to a driving means [Pg. 21] however, it is unclear whether this is the same or different from the moving means referenced in the claims. 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 § 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 4 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 4 recites “a through hole connecting the space part where a tester is located and an outside where a subject is located” which appears to positively recite human subject matter of “a tester” and “a subject” based on the grammar of the claim and the disclosure.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleh et al. ITS Designed COVID-19 Swab Test Booths, ITS News, May, 3, 2020 in view of Wren (U.S. 10016252).
Regarding Claim 1, Oleh teaches a test booth for collecting virus samples having an examination window, comprising a space part that provides a space where a tester is located, is blocked from an outside, and has a window wall configured to face a subject; and an examination window installed on the window wall of the space part and configured to correspond to a face of the subject, wherein the examination window comprises swab entry/exit holes formed through opposite sides of the examination window and having a passage having a diameter that allows entry and exit of a sample collection swab tool; See annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Oleh is silent on and a detachable cap configured to be attached to or detached from a swab entry/exit hole on a side of the space part among the swab entry/exit holes and having an opening means to be opened to guide a sample collection swab to a passage of the swab entry/exit hole in the space part, wherein the opening means is configured to open only in one direction toward the passage of the swab entry/exit hole in the space part, or when the opening means is not required, a fitting portion into which a swab is inserted from an outside of the booth is formed to penetrate the examination window, and a handle part connected thereto and exposed to an inside of the booth is formed. Wren teaches and a detachable cap configured to be attached to or detached from a swab entry/exit hole on a side of the space part among the swab entry/exit holes [Fig. 5, element 58 (flexible flap portions)] and having an opening means to be opened to guide a sample collection swab to a passage of the swab entry/exit hole in the space part [Fig. 1, elements 13-16 (junction receptacles or sealed gaskets)], wherein the opening means is configured to open only in one direction toward the passage of the swab entry/exit hole in the space part [Col 7, lines 30-33], or when the opening means is not required, a fitting portion into which a swab is inserted from an outside of the booth is formed to penetrate the examination window, and a handle part connected thereto and exposed to an inside of the booth is formed—due to the indefinite nature of this limitation, the limitation is excluded from examination since it is unclear whether or not it is required.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include opening/closing and covering components of the access holes as taught by Wren to protect humans from air-borne contaminants as suggested by Oleh, as Oleh discusses minimizing physical contact with a patient being examiner [Pg. 2] with Wren because Wren teaches the spread of germs, bacteria and other contaminants in the air [Col 1, lines 23-25].
Regarding Claim 2, Oleh is silent on wherein, in the examination window having the opening means, the opening means is configured as an incision line formed on a part of the detachable cap, wherein, when a sample collection swab is inserted, the opening means is incised by an external force to form incision pieces, and airtightness of the detachable cap is maintained as the incision pieces are rolled into the detachable cap. Wren teaches wherein, in the examination window having the opening means [Fig. 1, elements 13-16 (junction receptacles or sealed gaskets)], the opening means is configured as an incision line formed on a part of the detachable cap, [Fig. 5, element 58—where the borders of each flap are interpreted as the incision lines] wherein, when a sample collection swab is inserted, [Col 5, lines 67]—reference to access port, the opening means is incised by an external force to form incision pieces [Cols 5-6, lines 67-4]—describes user inserting hand to deform the flaps and the flaps rebounding to return to the original shape, and airtightness of the detachable cap is maintained as the incision pieces are rolled into the detachable cap [Cols 5, lines 62-67] and [Col 6, lines 3-5]—reference to the gasket sealing the flexible flap portions and the flaps returning to their original shape to reclose the access port.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sealing the access holes while still allowing for movement into and out of the structure as taught by Wren to protect health workforce as suggested by Oleh, as Oleh discusses protecting the health workforce optimally without eliminating comfort [Pg. 3] with Wren because Wren teaches the gaskets being of an airlock fir to prevent movement of air into or from the enclosure during procedures [Col 5, lines 29-31]. Regarding Claim 3, Oleh is silent on wherein an interference plate having a larger diameter than a diameter of the sample collection swab is formed on the sample collection swab, wherein, as the sample collection swab is inserted into and comes out of a swab entry/exit hole, the interference plate interferes with the opening means to separate the detachable cap. Wren teaches wherein an interference plate having a larger diameter than a diameter of the sample collection swab is formed on the sample collection swab [Fig. 5, element 48 (gasket)], wherein, as the sample collection swab is inserted into and comes out of a swab entry/exit hole, the interference plate interferes with the opening means to separate the detachable cap [Col 5, lines 24-25]—reference to diameter and [Cols 5, lines 62-67] and [Col 6, lines 3-5]—where interfering is interpreted to mean coming into contact while holding the flaps in place.
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 structure for maintaining the configuration of the access ports during and after use as taught by Wren to minimize physical contact with the person being tested as suggested by Oleh, as Oleh discusses protecting the operator [Pg. 3] with Wren because Wren teaches this diameter to allow for insertion and removal of medicines, and surgical tools needed for the procedure [Col 5, lines 27-29]. Regarding Claim 4, Oleh is silent on wherein a through hole connecting the space part where a tester is located and an outside where a subject is located is formed through the window wall, and the examination window is configured to be attached to or detached from the through hole through the detachable means. Wren teaches wherein a through hole connecting the space part where a tester is located [Fig. 1, element 42 (seals)] and an outside where a subject is located is formed through the window wall [Fig. 1, element 52 (subject)] and the examination window is configured to be attached to or detached from the through hole through the detachable means [Fig. 1, elements 7, 8 (wherein a through hole connecting the space part where a tester is located and an outside where a subject is located is formed through the window wall, and the examination window is configured to be attached to or detached from the through hole through the detachable means (gloves)]—where the gloves are configured to be detached from the through hole/seals and the examination window [Fig. 1, element 6 (side)]—where the sides are described as being made of a transparent material [Col 4, lines 10-12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detachable gloves as taught by Wren to fit within a safety hole as suggested by Oleh, as Oleh discusses the use of Handschoen (proboscis arms) with the operator’s hands [Pg. 3] with Wren because Wren teaches the need to periodically dispose of the gloves [Col 5, lines 18-19].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleh et al. ITS Designed COVID-19 Swab Test Booths, ITS News, May, 3, 2020 in view of Wren (U.S. 10016252) and in further view of Righetto (U.S. 20210355699).
Regarding Claim 5, Oleh and Wren are silent on wherein a connection portion made of a flexible material is formed to penetrate an inside and outside of the examination window. Righetto teaches wherein a connection portion made of a flexible material is formed to penetrate an inside and outside of the examination window [Figs. 4 and 5, element 11 (tubular element) and 20 (roof)]. This interpretation includes the connection portion being the tubular elements that connect the window [Fig. 4, element 6] and surrounding structure to an outside
a non-contact thermometer is installed to be exposed to the outside of the examination window through the connection portion [Fig. 5, element 101I (unit for measuring body temperature)], and [0088]—reference to a thermal scanner which is a non-contact thermometer, and a handle of the non-contact thermometer is installed to be exposed to the inside of the examination window through the connection portion when necessary –due to the indefinite nature of this limitation, it is interpreted that this is not required because of the recitation “when necessary”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention and incorporate a non-contact thermometer as taught by Righetto to limit contact with the infected person as suggested by Oleh, as Oleh discusses minimizing physical contact with the patient being examined [Pg. 2] and Wren which discloses an enclosure for isolating a patient [Col 6, lines 7-8] with Righetto because Righetto teaches the system used to control people who enter a room and reduce contaminant risk in that space [0006].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleh et al. ITS Designed COVID-19 Swab Test Booths, ITS News, May, 3, 2020 in view of Wren (U.S. 10016252) and in further view of Chui (U.S. 20070132262).
Regarding Claim 6, Oleh and Wren are silent on wherein the space part is installed so that the space part is moved from a central control building through a moving means. Chui teaches wherein the space part is installed so that the space part is moved from a central control building through a moving means [Abstract]—references mobile containerized autopsy facility easily movable by trailers or air to remote sites, and a wrinkled portion having elasticity is installed between the space part and the central control building [Fig. 1, elements 85a/b] and [0060]—discloses connection via flexible duct between the autopsy container and support container, which is interpreted to be the central control building. .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include air circulation and connecting means as taught by Chui to control air flow within the booth as suggested by Oleh, as Oleh discusses allowing air to flow out of the booth [Pg. 3] and Wren which the means to control oxygen and nitrogen levels in the system by conduit [Col 4, lines 54-55] with Chui because Chui teaches designing the system to minimize pathologist exposure to airborne contaminants by the use of proper facilities design [0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Moser (U.S. 20170049641)-teaches the use of access holes that could include introduction of swabs into the isolation space
-Chiesl (WO 2014052590)-discloses the use of a swab port device for microfluidic applications
-Arts (WO 2006110797)-includes isolation container with access ports for introduction of surgical and procedural tools
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