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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action in response to the IDS filed 2/9/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-19 are pending and examined.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
In claim 6, line 3, “the dome” has no antecedent basis.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Erlacher(EP3486172; cited previously on IDS) in view of Zhong.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Erlacher discloses a shielding apparatus for a workstation(person inside thereby considered a workstation), consisting of a wall(see Figs. 3-4), and
wherein the wall is positioned above the respective workstation(see Fig. 4), and the wall can be lowered in order to shield the workstation when required(see Fig. 4),
the wall is positioned under a ceiling on at least one cable(8 is considered the cable, see Fig. 4),
the wall for shielding the workstation configured to be actuated for lowering and lifting by a respective operating person,
the wall, while in a lowered state, at least partially surrounds the workstation (2), and
the wall is made from a solid material having an adequate stability(see Fig. 4).
Erlacher lacks the wall suspended from the ceiling and raised and lowered by a cable system.
Zhong discloses a shielding apparatus suspended from a ceiling by a cable system(see Fig. 1) with a gap between the ceiling and apparatus(see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the securement of the wall to the ceiling of Erlacher with that of Zhong given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wall is formed closed all around and, in the lowered state, completely surrounds the workstation(see Figs. 3-4 of Erlacher in as much as the claimed invention “completely surrounds” the workstation).
Regarding claims 4-5, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the wall is formed as a circular cylinder(see Figs. 3-4 of Erlacher).
Regarding claim 6, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wall encircles the workstation and is open to the top or has an upper opening in the wall(see Figs. 3-4 or Erlacher).
Regarding claim 11, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein apparatuses for fastening work equipment are provided on an inside of the wall(seats are considered “fasteners”, see Fig. 3).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlacher and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koninklijke(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2016/0177566; cited previously on IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 7, but lack the specific use of a material of the wall sound- deadening.
Koninklijke discloses a shielding apparatus for a workstation(see Fig. 1), consisting of a wall(110, 110a, see Figs. 1 and 3) which at least partially surrounds the workstation, wherein the wall is positioned above the respective workstation(see Fig. 3), and the wall can be lowered in order to shield the workstation(see para. [0068) when required.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the material of the wall of Erlacher with a sound-deadening material, as disclosed by Koninklijke, given that KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 9-10, Erlacher and Zhong in view of Koninklijke disclose a shielding apparatus with a sound deadening wall, but lacks the specific material used for the wall. Applicant's disclosure lends no criticality to the specific material used for the wall(see para. [0017]).
The specific material used or coating thereon would be well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have determined given the intended use of the wall and design requirements thereof.
Claims 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlacher and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Broome(5,819,835; cited previously on IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, but lack the system having the cable for the cable pull system guided around a fixed roller and movable rollers in the manner of a block and tackle.
Broome discloses a shielding apparatus having a wall(20), and a cable system having fixed(40) and movable rollers(30).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the cable system of Erlacher and Zhong with the cable system of Broome given that KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. (2006) has found that the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, Erlacher and Zhong and Broome disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cable pull system (9) can be actuated by motor(17, see column 3, lines 35-41 and Fig. 1 of Broome).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Erlacher and Zhong and Broome disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, but lack the actuation of the cable pull system (9) can be actuated by electric motor, hand or remote-controllable.
The specific manner in which the apparatus is controlled is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the apparatus and design requirements thereof.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlacher and Zhong, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ramsey(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2005/077017; cited previously on IDS).
Regarding claims 14-15, Erlacher and Zhong disclose the shielding apparatus according to claim 1, but lack the cable equipped with a counterweight for compensating for the weight of the wall or a spring balancer.
Ramsey discloses a shielding apparatus having a counterweight and spring balancer.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the apparatus of Erlacher and Zhong with a counterweight and/or spring balancer, such as disclosed by Ramsey, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have aided in the use of the apparatus given the intended use of the apparatus and design requirements thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY(STEPHAN) whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights