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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed with this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 & 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A) In Claim 1, line 8, “air extraction system” should read “air extraction subsystem” for continuity
B) In Claim 2, line 2, “air extraction system” should read “air extraction subsystem” for continuity
C) In Claims 5-6, lines 1, “air extraction system” should read “air extraction subsystem” for continuity
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 & 7 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.
A) In Claim 4, line 8, the term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if this is positively recited in the claims or not. For the purposes of examination, the limitations following “optionally” have been construed to not be required for the claimed method.
B) Claim 7 is also rejected due to its dependency on Claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication Number 2018/0163978 A1 to Ziegler.
A) As per Claims 1-2 & 4, Ziegler teaches a room insulation system (Zeigler: Figure 1), for preventing leakage of contaminants from an insulated room to its surroundings and/or from the surroundings into the insulated room, the insulated room being enclosed by any of a floor, a ceiling and one or more walls, the system comprising:
at least one inner panel (Zeigler: Figure 1, wall between Item 130 & 150), disposed parallel to, and a given distance from, a corresponding one of said floor, ceiling or wall, forming an insulation space (Ziegler: Figure 1, Item 150) between them, and
an air extraction system (Zeigler: Figure 1, Item 160 with ductwork has extraction system), including a fan and a filter and having an intake port and an exhaust port; wherein one or more of said insulation spaces are fluidly interconnected, to form a Negative Pressure Envelope (NPE) (Zeigler: Figure 1, Item 130),
the intake port of the air extraction subsystem is fluidly connected to the NPE and
the exhaust port of the air extraction subsystem is fluidly connected to the atmosphere or any other surrounding space and
wherein the air extraction subsystem is configured and operative to extract air from the NPE into the atmosphere while maintaining an air pressure within the NPE substantially below the atmospheric pressure and the air pressure within the insulated room (Zeigler: Figure 1, Item 130 is below both atmospheric and Item 150; Paragraph 0040).
B) As per Claim 3, Ziegler teaches that an air refreshing and filtering system in fluid communication with space inside the room and with the atmosphere (Zeigler: Figure 1, Item 160 with ductwork has refresh system).
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.
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ziegler in view of US Patent Number 10,760,791 B2 to Gans.
A) As per Claims 5-7, Ziegler teaches all the limitations except explicitly that the air extraction system further includes a pressure sensor, disposed within the NPE, and a controller, electrically connected to the pressure sensor and to the fan, the fan, the controller and the pressure sensor being cooperative in said maintaining of the air pressure within the NPE.
However, Gans teaches the air extraction system further includes a pressure sensor, disposed within the NPE, and a controller, electrically connected to the pressure sensor and to the fan, the fan, the controller and the pressure sensor being cooperative in said maintaining of the air pressure within the NPE (Gans: Col. 9, lines 15-42).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Ziegler by having a pressure sensor control fan speed, as taught by Gans, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ziegler with these aforementioned teachings of Gans with the motivation of further controlling the pressure to the desired level within the space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A) US Patent Number 9,372,009 B2 to Coogan
B) US Patent Number 10,798,807 B2 to Sakamoto
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN SCHULT whose telephone number is (571)272-8511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, STEVE MCALLISTER can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762