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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The limitations “first interface means” and “second interface means” as stated in claim 1 invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The application specification further defines the interface means to include one of electromagnets (page 12 line 6), sleeve flanges (page 12 line 13), or gaskets (page 12 line 25). However, the specification goes on to state that there are many possibilities for interface means (page 13 lines 13-15). Due to the open ended specification for what constitutes an “interface means”, for the purposes of this examination, said limitation has been interpreted to mean any structure that results in a sealing connection between two surfaces.
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 11-13 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 11 recites the limitation "the hydrogen peroxide" in line 13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the hydrogen peroxide" in line 15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the hydrogen peroxide" in line 17 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenn (US 5277654 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fenn teaches a cart-window assembly comprising a cart for moving material to/from a clean room (wheeled apparatus for transporting contaminated asbestos workers to decontamination facility, abstract) and at least one window adapted to allow the communication between a dirty space and said clean room (Figure 5 shows the entrance of the decon unit “62” to communicate between the cart “10” and the decon unit “80”); wherein said cart comprises: a compartment (Figure 2 showing interior of transfer enclosure “18”), at least one protected door adapted to alternatively allow accessing the compartment and hermetically closing the compartment (enclosure is provided with latched door, column 5 lines 28-30, and door creates airtight seal when closed and latched, column 5 lines 35-36), a ventilation system (air inlet with HEPA filter and fan to create positive within enclosure, abstract), and first interface means surrounding the protected door (sealing flap extending around door, abstract); wherein said window comprises: a panel which can be alternatively be open or sealing closed (entrance is selectively sealed by a flap seal, column 1 lines 57-58), and second interface means extending along the periphery of the panel wherein the first interface means and the second interface means are mutually complementary and allow the cart to be firmly coupled to the window in a reversible manner, so as to define a gap therebetween which is sealingly closed (sealing flap around cart door has Velcro strap that corresponded to Velcro strip on the decontamination chamber, abstract, Figure 4 front wall of decon chamber “70a” sealingly attached to cart “10” via Velcro straps “64”).
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.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenn in view of Kellogg (US 11000613 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Fenn teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the ventilation system of the cart is adapted to create a laminar air flow inside the compartment. However, Kellogg teaches wherein the ventilation system of the cart is adapted to create a laminar flow inside the compartment (laminar air flow system, column 8 lines 7-8).
Fenn and Kellogg are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of transportable clean room devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transfer cart taught by Fenn with the laminar system taught by Kellogg because Kellogg teaches the laminar air flow system will provide an air curtain that helps protect against airborne pathogens (column 8 lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 3, Fenn teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the cart further comprises a biodecontamination system. However, Kellogg teaches wherein the cart further comprises a biodecontamination system (transportable chamber with airborne sterilizing agent generator, abstract).
Fenn and Kellogg are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transfer cart taught by Fenn with the biodecontamination system taught by Kellogg because Kellogg teaches that effective sterilization will reduce the risk of microbial borne infections (Column 3 lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fenn and Kellogg teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the biodecontamination comprises a lamp adapted to emit an ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UV sterilized air, column 7 lines 56-57, Kellogg).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fenn and Kellogg teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the biodecontamination system comprises an HP apparatus (hydrogen peroxide generator, column 12 lines 14-15, Kellogg) and a first conduit adapted to introduce a flow of hydrogen peroxide-based HP mixture into the compartment (hydrogen peroxide floods the chamber when the generator is turned on, column 16 lines 7-9, Kellogg).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fenn and Kellogg teaches all aspects of the current invention except wherein the cart further comprises one or more main catalysts placed along the ventilation system, downstream of the compartment and adapted to ensure the splitting of the hydrogen peroxide molecules into water and oxygen. However, Kellogg further teaches one or more main catalysts placed along the ventilation system (Figure 3 catalytic converter placed in the air return register “115” downstream of the chamber “100”), downstream of the compartment and adapted to ensure the splitting of the hydrogen peroxide molecules into water and oxygen (catalyst degrade hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen, column 14 lines 34-35).
Fenn and Kellogg are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the sterilizing transfer cart taught by Fenn and Kellogg with the catalyst taught by Kellogg because Kellogg teaches running the air through the catalyst allows the air in the chamber to be suitable for occupancy again (column 16 lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 8, while the combination of Fenn and Kellogg does not explicitly teach a third conduit for hydrogen peroxide distribution or one or more ancillary catalyst, it has been established that the duplication of parts is not sufficient to differentiate an invention over prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional hydrogen peroxide conduits to achieve the desired decontamination gas distribution and additional catalysts to achieve occupancy suitability (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B)). Additionally, Kellogg teaches the entire system is transportable which would include the catalyst (abstract). Moreover, the making of a part separable is not sufficient to differentiate prior art. Therefore it would have been obvious to make the ancillary catalyst removeable to achieve the needed exhaust support as necessary (See MPEP 2144.04 V (C)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenn.
Regarding claim 7, Fenn teaches wherein the cart comprises a second conduit connecting the interior of the compartment to a mouth outside of the compartment (Figure 1 exhaust port “20”). While Fenn does not explicitly state wherein the mouth is between the protected door and the first interface means, Fenn does teach where the work area and the marginal region surrounding the opening into the work region (Figure 4 “70a”) must be kept negative pressure (column 6 line 65). Additionally, it has been established that a rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to differentiate an invention over prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to place the exhaust port between the protected door and the first interface means to achieve the desired internal pressure and air supply through a rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenn in view of Tanimoto (US 9086225 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Fenn teaches all aspects of the current invention as discussed above except wherein the window further comprises a mouth between the panel and the second interface means connected to a fixed HP system. However, Tanimoto teaches wherein the window comprises a mouth between the panel and the second interface means connected to a fixed HP system (Figure 3 gas supply chamber “66” supplies hydrogen peroxide to pass box area “8” before item enters clean chamber “2” via internal door “18”).
Fenn and Tanimoto are considered analogous to the current invention because all are in the field of sterile cleanrooms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sterilizing transfer cart with the window that supplies hydrogen peroxide taught by Tanimoto because Tanimoto teaches decontamination supply to the pass box area enables introduction of an object into the operation area while maintaining a sterile environment (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fenn and Tanimoto teaches all aspects of the current invention including wherein the window further comprises a second ventilation system comprising an exhaust filter and fixed catalyst (Figure 3 catalyst “104” decomposes and detoxifies decontamination gas before it is discharged from the pass box area “8”, Tanimoto).
Regarding claim 11, Fenn teaches providing a cart in the dirty space according the claim 1 and a first window assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); coupling the cart to the first window by the interface means so as to form a first gap (people mover releasably coupled to a work area, column 4 lines 26-27); sealing closing the first gap (entrance is selectively sealed by a flap seal, column 1 lines 57-58); opening the panel of the first window (flap seal opening opens into an air lock chamber, column 6 line 68); opening the protected door of the cart (door to the people mover is opened into the decon unit, column 8 lines 12-13); sealingly closing the protected door (air tight seal when the door is closed, column 5 line 35); sealingly closing the panel of the first window (closable flap seal opening, column 6 line 68-column 7 line 2); and uncoupling the cart from the first window of the first clean room (flaps are peeled away from cooperating strips on work area entrance, column 7 lines 37-39); transporting the cart to the second room (moves people mover to the entrance of the decon unit, column 7 lines 46-48); coupling the cart to the second window by the interface means as to form a second gap (flaps pressed against cooperating strips arranged about the entrance to decon unit, column 7 lines 56-58); opening the panel of the second window (opening of the airlock region of the decon unit, column 7 lines 59-60); opening the protected door of the cart (workers open the door into the airlock, column 7 lines 58-59); sealingly closing the protected door (door may then be closed, column 7 line 62); sealingly closing the panel of the second window (closable flab arranged between airlock and room, column 6 lines 42-44); uncoupling the cart from the second window of the second clean room (flaps peeled away from the decon unit entrance, column 7 lines 62-63), but does not teach transferring clean material from a first clean room to a second clean room, biodecontaminating the first gap, eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residues from the first gap, biodecontaminating the second gap, and eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residues from the second gap. However, Tanimoto teaches transferring clean material from a first clean room to a second clean room (transfer the object from the first relay pass box to the next relay pass box (paragraph [0056]), biodecontaminating the first gap (Figure 3 gas supply chamber “66” supplies hydrogen peroxide to pass box area “8” before item enters clean chamber “2” via internal door “18”), and eliminating the hydrogen peroxide from the first gap (Figure 3 catalyst “104” decomposes and detoxifies decontamination gas before it is discharged from the pass box area “8”, Tanimoto). While Tanimoto does not explicitly teach biodecontaminating the second gap, and eliminating the hydrogen peroxide from the second gap, it has been established that the duplication of parts is not sufficient to differentiate an invention over the prior art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the steps of biodecontaminating the gap and eliminating the hydrogen peroxide from the gap to achieve a sterile transfer between clean rooms (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B)).
Fenn and Tanimoto are considered analogous to the current invention as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transfer method taught by Fenn with the decontamination steps taught by Tanimoto because Tanimoto teaches such decontamination will enable the introduction of an object into an operation area while maintaining a sterile environment (abstract).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenn in view of Kellogg and Tanimoto.
Regarding claim 12, Fenn teaches a method for transferring dirty material from a dirty space to clean room (transporting contaminated workers to a decontamination facility, abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a cart of an assembly according to claim 1 in the dirty space (see rejection for claim 1); providing the clean room with a window of an assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); opening a door of the cart (door opening into the air lock at the entrance to the work area, column 7 lines 29-30); loading the dirty material into the compartment (contaminated personnel enter enclosure, column 7 lines 34-35); sealingly closing the door (air tight seal when the door is closed, column 5 line 35); coupling the cart to the window of the clean room by the interface means as to form a gap (flaps pressed against cooperating strips arranged about the entrance to decon unit, column 7 lines 56-58); sealingly closing the gap (flaps arranged around the entrance create a seal, column 7 lines 56-57 and 61); opening the panel of the window (opening of the airlock region of the decon unit, column 7 lines 59-60); opening the protected door of the cart (workers open the door into the airlock, column 7 lines 58-59); sealingly closing the protected door (door may then be closed, column 7 line 62); sealingly closing the panel of the window (closable flab arranged between airlock and room, column 6 lines 42-44); uncoupling the cart from the window of the clean room (flaps peeled away from the decon unit entrance, column 7 lines 62-63), but does not teach biodecontaminating the gap, the interior of the compartment, and the material; eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residues from the gap and the compartment or unloading the clean material from the compartment. However, Tanimoto teaches biodecontaminating the gap and the material (Figure 3 gas supply chamber “66” supplies hydrogen peroxide to pass box area “8” before item enters clean chamber “2” via internal door “18” and object introduced to pass box, paragraph [0019]); eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residues from the gap (Figure 3 catalyst “104” decomposes and detoxifies decontamination gas before it is discharged from the pass box area “8”, Tanimoto); and unloading the clean material from the compartment (arranged to introduce an object into the operation area from the pass box, abstract), and Kellogg teaches biodecontaminating the compartment (hydrogen peroxide floods the chamber when the generator is turned on, column 16 lines 7-9) and eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residue from the compartment (Figure 3 catalytic converter placed in the air return register “115” downstream of the chamber “100”).
Fenn, Tanimoto, and Kellogg are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transfer method taught by Fenn with the decontamination steps taught by Tanimoto because Tanimoto teaches such decontamination will enable the introduction of an object into an operation area while maintaining a sterile environment (abstract). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the transfer method taught by Fenn with the decontamination steps taught by Kellogg because Kellogg teaches effective sterilization will reduce the risk of microbial borne infections (Column 3 lines 55-56) and running the air through the catalyst allows the air in the chamber to be suitable for occupancy again (column 16 lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 13, Fenn teaches a method for transferring dirty material from a dirty space to clean room (transporting contaminated workers to a decontamination facility, abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a cart of an assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); providing the clean room with a window of an assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection for claim 1); coupling the cart to the window of the clean room by the interface means as to form a gap (flaps pressed against cooperating strips arranged about the entrance to decon unit, column 7 lines 56-58); sealingly closing the gap (flaps arranged around the entrance create a seal, column 7 lines 56-57 and 61); opening the panel of the window (opening of the airlock region of the decon unit, column 7 lines 59-60); opening the protected door of the cart (workers open the door into the airlock, column 7 lines 58-59); sealingly closing the protected door (door may then be closed, column 7 line 62); sealingly closing the panel of the window (closable flab arranged between airlock and room, column 6 lines 42-44); uncoupling the cart from the window of the clean room (flaps peeled away from the decon unit entrance, column 7 lines 62-63); moving the cart (moves people mover to the entrance of the decon unit, column 7 lines 46-48); opening a door of the cart (workers open the door into the airlock, column 7 lines 58-59), but does not teach but does not teach biodecontaminating the gap, the interior of the compartment, and the material; eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residues from the gap and the compartment or unloading the clean material from the compartment. However, Tanimoto teaches biodecontaminating the gap and the material (Figure 3 gas supply chamber “66” supplies hydrogen peroxide to pass box area “8” before item enters clean chamber “2” via internal door “18” and object introduced to pass box, paragraph [0019]); eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residues from the gap (Figure 3 catalyst “104” decomposes and detoxifies decontamination gas before it is discharged from the pass box area “8”, Tanimoto); and unloading the clean material from the compartment (arranged to introduce an object into the operation area from the pass box, abstract), and Kellogg teaches biodecontaminating the compartment (hydrogen peroxide floods the chamber when the generator is turned on, column 16 lines 7-9) and eliminating the hydrogen peroxide residue from the compartment (Figure 3 catalytic converter placed in the air return register “115” downstream of the chamber “100”).
While the combination of Fenn, Tanimoto, and Kellogg does not explicitly teach that the cart is inside of the clean room, it has been established that the rearrangement of parts is not sufficient to differentiate an invention from prior art. Additionally, Fenn teaches wherein the cart is configured to easily fit through doorways (column 3 line 43) enabling its use inside of a clean room. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the cart on the inside of the clean room to achieve desired transfer into the clean room (See MPEP 2144.04 VI (C)).
Fenn, Tanimoto, and Kellogg are considered analogous to the current invention as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the transfer method taught by Fenn with the decontamination steps taught by Tanimoto because Tanimoto teaches such decontamination will enable the introduction of an object into an operation area while maintaining a sterile environment (abstract). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the transfer method taught by Fenn with the decontamination steps taught by Kellogg because Kellogg teaches effective sterilization will reduce the risk of microbial borne infections (Column 3 lines 55-56) and running the air through the catalyst allows the air in the chamber to be suitable for occupancy again (column 16 lines 24-26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA ROSE SARANTAKOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5524. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/K.R.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/DONALD R SPAMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799