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 .
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 1-12 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 the limitation "the first air supply connection pipe" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main air supply pipe" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas environment of the first area" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first air exhaust connection pipe" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the exhaust air main " in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second air supply connection pipe" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the air supply main pipe" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “the main air supply pipe” has been previously recited. In applying art, the air supply main pipe has been interpreted as referring to the previously recited main air supply pipe.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the gas environment in the second area" in line 12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second air exhaust connection pipe" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “splicing” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean “subdividing,” while the accepted meaning is “to unite (two ropes or two parts of a rope) by interweaving the strands.” As defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the ratio of the fresh air volume in the first area to the volume of the first area" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that “the fresh air volume in the first area” and “the volume of the first area” each also lack antecedent basis in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fresh air volume in the second area" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the volume ratio of the second region" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear how the ratio of the fresh air volume in the first area to the volume of the first area can be a value greater than 1 since this suggests the volume contained within the area is greater than the volume of the area itself.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the fresh air volume in the second area is greater than or equal to 12” is indefinite. No units have been used for the volume making it impossible to determine the intended value.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the volume ratio of the second region is greater than or equal to 12” is indefinite. The claim has not clearly defined what the volume of the second area is being compared with and it is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the numerous indefinite claim limitations have made it impossible to apply art to the claim without making numerous assumptions. Examiner further notes that it appears the specification does not provide further description and therefore amendment to address the indefinite limitations would likely introduce new matter.
Regarding claim 5, various pipes previously recited in the parent claims are recited without any further limitation making the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the pipes are meant to be included in the further limitation concerning the wind speed in the air supply branch pipe and the air exhaust branch pipe.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first air supply connection pipeline" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the parent claims recite “the first air supply connection pipe”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first air supply inlet straight pipe" in lines 4-5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the claim previously recited “a first air supply inlet straight pipeline.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first air outlet straight pipe" in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the claim has previously recited “the first air outlet straight pipeline”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second air supply connection pipeline" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claims recite “the second air supply connection pipe”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second air outlet straight pipe" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 depend upon claim 1 and therefore are indefinite for the same reasons.
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) 1-3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dieckert et al. (US 5,205,783).
Regarding claim 1, Dieckert discloses a laboratory (see Dieckert figure 11) comprising:
A plurality of laboratory units (see annotated figure), each of which includes a first area (see annotated figure), and a second area (Dieckert C);
Wherein the first area includes the first air supply connection pipe (see annotated figure) has one end connected to the main air supply pipe (Dieckert 160) and the other end forms a first air supply port (see annotated figure) that communicated with the gas environment of the first area (see Dieckert figure 11), the first air supply connection pipe provided with a first air supply valve (Dieckert 166);
The first air exhaust connection pipe (Dieckert 142c) has one end connected to the exhaust air main pipe (Dieckert 142), and the other end forms a first air exhaust port (see annotated figure) that communicated with the gas environment of the first area, the first exhaust air connection pipe provided with a first row damper (Dieckert 150);
The second area includes the second air supply connection pipe (Dieckert 164) has one end communicated with the air supply main pipe (Dieckert 160), and the other end forms a second air supply port (see annotated figure) that communicated with the gas environment in the second area (see annotated figure), the second air supply connection pipe provided with a second air supply port air valve (Dieckert 170);
The second air exhaust connection pipe (Dieckert 142a) having one end connected to the exhaust air main pipe (see Dieckert figure 11), and the other end forming a second air exhaust port (see annotated figure) that communicated with the gas environment of the second area, and the second air exhaust connection pipe provided with a second air outlet second exhaust valve (Dieckert 170a).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
1007
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dieckert figure 11 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Dieckert as applied to claim 1 discloses the laboratory further comprises a plurality of experimental areas (Dieckert 144) located within the laboratory units (see Dieckert figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, Dieckert as applied to claim 1 further discloses an air supply branch pipe (Dieckert 162) and an air exhaust branch pipe (Dieckert 142a); wherein, both the first air supply connection pipe and the second air supply connection pipe are connected with the air supply branch pipe (see Dieckert figure 11), and the air supply branch pipe is connected with the air supply main pipe (see Dieckert figure 11) and a recooling and/or reheating coil (Dieckert 136) are arranged in the upper part (see Dieckert figure 11) to adjust the temperature of the gas in the air supply branch pipe; and the first air exhaust connection duct and the second air exhaust connection duct are both connected to the air exhaust branch duct (see Dieckert figure 11), and are connected to the air exhaust main duct through the air exhaust branch duct (see Dieckert figure 11).
Regarding claim 9, Dieckert as applied to claim 1 discloses the first air exhaust valve and the second air exhaust valve are variable air volume valves (Dieckert column 21 line 67 – column 22 line 4).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieckert et al. (US 5,205,783) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2016/0131391 A1) and Weng (US 2016/0298857 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dieckert as applied to claim 3 is silent regarding the exact velocity of the airflow in the air supply branch pipe and the air exhaust branch pipe.
However, He teaches an air supply system wherein air through a supply duct (He 12) is supplied at a flow rate of 1 m/s to 6.5 m/s (He [0040]). Further, Weng teaches an exhaust system wherein airflow through the exhaust system is at 3 m/s (Weng [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Dieckert’s laboratory to incorporate He’s teachings of supply airflow between 3-5 m/s and Weng’s teachings of exhaust airflow at 3 m/s to produce a predictable result of producing an acceptable level of airflow through the laboratory’s ventilation system.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dieckert et al. (US 5,205,783) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Dieckert as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the distance between adjacent dampers.
However, a court has held that claims directed to limitations relating to size are insufficient to distinguish over prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to size Dieckert’s laboratory to have the adjacent dampers located at least 0.5 meters apart to produce a predictable result of creating separation between separate airflows.
Regarding claim 10, Dieckert as applied to claim 1 is silent regarding the areas of the first area and the second area.
However, a court has held that claims directed to limitations relating to size are insufficient to distinguish over prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Dieckert’s laboratory by selecting dimensions for the first and second area that fall within the claimed ranges of 10m2 to 20 m2 for the first area and 2m2 to 9m2 for the second area to fit within available space in an existing building.
Regarding claim 11, Dieckert as applied to claim 10 is silent regarding the exact dimensions of the first area and the second area.
However, a court has held that claims directed to limitations relating to size are insufficient to distinguish over prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select dimensions of length of greater than 3m and width of greater than 2.5m for the first area and length of 1.5m to 3m and with of 1.5m to 3m for the second area to provide the required space within the laboratory for laboratory activities.
Regarding claim 12, Dieckert as applied to claim 10 teaches the first area is a laboratory operation room (see Dieckert figure 11) and the second area is a buffer room (see Dieckert figure 11). Examiner notes that Dieckert’s corridor between the laboratory room and other areas is being interpreted as a buffer room.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record is silent regarding the width's for the pipes and valves recited in claims 6 and 7 .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762