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 .
Specification
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 1-42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The beginning of the claim listing is titled “LIST OF CLAMS,” which should apparently read --LIST OF CLAIMS--.
In claim 1, line 1: “An utilitarian” should apparently read --A utilitarian--.
In claims 1-42 (numerous instances): “utilitarian-container” should apparently read --utilitarian container-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 1, lines 1, 7, and 12: “specific-tasks” should apparently read --specific tasks-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 1, line 4: “experiment-kit” should apparently read --experiment kit-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 1, lines 4, 6, 11, and 16: “inner-elements” should apparently read --inner elements-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 1, lines 6, 11, and 16: “the inner-elements” should apparently read --the plurality of inner elements--.
In claim 1, line 6: “comprise” should apparently read –comprises--.
In claim 1, line 18: “locking-means” should apparently read --locking means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 1, line 20: “inflation-means” should apparently read --inflation means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 4, line 7: “circumstances” should apparently read --the circumstances--.
In claim 4, lines 6 and 10: “specific-tasks” should apparently read --specific tasks--.
In claim 7, lines 1 and 3: “inflation-means” should apparently read --inflation means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 10, line 5: “specific-tasks” should apparently read --specific tasks--.
In claim 16, line 3, line 4, line 6, line 7, line 9, line 10, and line 11: “supplementary-containers” should apparently read --supplementary containers-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 16, line 7: “configured contain” should apparently read --configured to contain--.
In claim 16, lines 3-4, 6-7, and 10-11: “the safety-valves” should apparently read --the one or more safety-valves--.
In claim 16, lines 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11: “the supplementary-containers” should apparently read --the one or more supplementary containers--.
In claim 17, line 2: “alarm-signal” should apparently read --alarm signal-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 18, line 1 and line 3: “cable-ports” should apparently read --cable ports-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 19, lines 1-2 and 4: “the displays” should apparently read --the one or more displays--.
In claim 20, line 4 and line 5: “attachment-means” should apparently read --attachment means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 22, line 4: “deflation-means” should apparently read --deflation means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 22, line 6: “rei-inflation” should apparently read --re-inflation--.
In claim 23, line 4: “the airtight ports” should apparently read --the one or more airtight ports--.
In claim 28, line 1 and line 2: “locking-means” should apparently read --locking means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 31, line 1 and line 2: “cleaning-means” should apparently read --cleaning means-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 35, line 1 and line 3: “optical-components” should apparently read --optical components-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 35, line 3: “the optical-components” should apparently read --the one or more optical components--.
In claim 38, line 2: “enclosure’s” should apparently read --the enclosure’s--.
In claim 39, line 2: “resulted” should apparently read --resulting--.
In claim 41, line 2: “position-sensors” should apparently read --position sensors-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 41, lines 2-3: “inertial-sensors” should apparently read --inertial sensors-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 41, line 7 and line 8: “performance-parameters” should apparently read --performance parameters-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 41, line 9: “specific-tasks” should apparently read --specific tasks-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
In claim 42, line 2: “prepacked-kit” should apparently read -- prepacked kit-- (i.e., with a space between the words and not a hyphen).
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 1-42 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 that “the inner-elements further comprise materials, devices, and tools” in line 6. It is not clear if the inner elements must comprise all of (i) materials, (ii) devices, and (iii) tools, or merely at least one of these groupings; further, it is not clear how these groupings differ, as, e.g., tools are devices that are made up of materials.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the configurations and positions" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “users” in line 12, line 13, and line 15. It is not clear if these are intended to refer to the same users recited in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the ground" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a high pressure” in line 2. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite pressure are not readily determinable.
Claim 3 also recites the limitation “relative rigidity” in line 2. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation. It is not clear what the rigidity is relative to. If it is intended to recite a certain level of rigidity, then this is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite rigidity are not readily determinable.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the intended task" in line 3, “the positions” in line 4, “the circumstances” in line 5, “the prospective users” in line 5, “the intended users” in line 8, “the hand and finger size” in line 8, and “the physical and mental abilities” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the user” in line 2. It is not clear which of the users this refers to.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the shape" in line 2 and “the task accomplishment” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the airtight insertion" in line 2 and “the inserted device” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation “the wall” in line 3. It is not clear which of the walls this refers to.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation “other thin devices” in line 2. The term “thin” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite size are not readily determinable.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the inner-elements comprise one or more of the following: packages and casings holding materials or tools, samples, vials, cartridges, devices” in lines 2-3. This phrasing is confusing; e.g., is this reciting one or more of (i) packages and casings holding materials or tools, (ii) samples, (iii) vials, (iv) cartridges, and (v) devices; or is this reciting that the packages and casings hold one or more of (i) materials or tools, (ii) samples, (iii) vials, (iv) cartridges, and (v) devices; or some other permutation?
Claim 14 recites the limitation “small heating or cooling elements” in line 3. The term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite size are not readily determinable.
Claim 14 also recites the limitation “receptacles of various forms” in line 4. The metes and bounds of “various forms” is not readily determinable.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the task accomplishment” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the inside pressure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “one or more power supply cables and signal carrying cables” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to recite (i) one or more power supply cables and (ii) signal carrying cables; or to recite one or more of (i) power supply cables and (ii) signal carrying cables.
Claim 18 also recites the limitation “the enclosure wall” in line 3. It is not clear which of the walls this refers to.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the walls of the container” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claims only previously recite walls of the enclosure.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation “the walls” in line 3. It is not clear which of the walls this refers to (e.g., the walls of the container or the walls of the enclosure).
Claim 19 also recites the limitation “the user” in line 5. It is not clear which of the users this refers to.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the wall of the enclosure” in line 2. It is not clear which of the walls this refers to.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “several attachment-means” in line 4. The metes and bounds of “several” are not readily determinable.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “to secure of the enclosure” in line 4. This limitation is not clear and appears to either have extraneous language or be missing language.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation "the ground" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation "larger objects" in line 5. It is not clear what “larger” is relative to.
Claim 20 also recites the limitation “other suction devices that” in line 6. This limitation is not clear and appears to be missing language.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “several” in line 2. The metes and bounds of “several” are not readily determinable.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “means for controlled deflation comprising controlled gas valves, taps, and other deflation-means” in lines 3-4. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that the means for controlled deflation must include all of gas valves, taps, and other deflation-means, or if it must include only at least one of them.
Claim 22 also recites the limitation “means for controlled re-inflation comprising kits for gas generation, pressurized cartridges, external pumps, other rei-inflation means” in lines 3-4. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that the means for controlled re-inflation must include all of these, or if it must include only at least one of them.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the replacement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 also recites the limitation “means for resealing comprising one or more of airtight zips, re-sealable adhesive tapes, other resealing means” in lines 4-5. It is not clear if this is intended to recite that the means for resealing must include all of these, or if it must include only at least one of them.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a transparent, thin conductive wireframe” in line 3. The term “thin” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite size are not readily determinable.
Claim 25 also recites the limitation "the walls’ surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the user” in line 2. It is not clear which of the users this refers to.
Claim 27 also recites the limitation “tables or other external objects that are made of or include in their structure iron parts” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if both the tables and the other external objects must be made of or include in their structure iron parts.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 also contains the trademark/trade name Velcro in line 3. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a fastener and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 28 also recites the limitation “the like” in line 4. The metes and bounds of this limitation are not readily determinable.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the enclosure wall” in line 2. It is not clear which of the walls this refers to.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the inside" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitations “a dark light reducing part” in lines 1-2 and “bright uncomfortable light” in line 2. “Dark” and “bright” are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite intensities are not readily determinable.
Claim 34 recites the limitations "the ingredients degradation time" in lines 2-3 and “the contained materials” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation “materials” in line 1. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the materials recited in claim 1.
Claim 39 also recites the limitations "the noxious compounds" and “the experiment” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 also recites the limitation “mild heating” in lines 2-3. The term “mild” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the requisite heating are not readily determinable.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “tools and device” in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the tools and devices recited in claim 1.
Claim 41 also recites the limitation “the data processing module” in line 6. It is not clear which of the modules this refers to.
Claim 41 also recites the limitations "the data" in lines 6-7 and “the sensors” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 41 also recites the limitations “user’s skills” and “the user” in line 9. It is not clear which of the users this refers to.
Claims 2-42 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon at least one rejected base 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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, 18, 37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shenosky et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0004423 A1; hereinafter known as “Shenosky”).
Regarding claim 1, Shenosky discloses a utilitarian-container enabling users to perform specific-tasks (Abstract; Fig. 1), the utilitarian-container comprising: (a). an inflatable, flexible, and fluids-impermeable enclosure ([0009]; [0037]-[0038]); (b). an experiment-kit comprising a plurality of inner-elements disposed inside the enclosure, wherein the inner-elements further comprise materials, devices, and tools for performing the specific-tasks ([0011]; [0071]-[0077]); wherein the utilitarian-container comes in at least the following configurations: a deflated-state, an operational-state, and a discard-state ([0042]; [0048]; collapsible/deflated, operational/inflated, and one-time use/disposable); wherein, in the deflated-state and the operational-state, the configurations and positions of the inner-elements inside the enclosure are pre-arranged such as to enable users to efficiently perform the specific-tasks ([0011]; [0071]-[0077]); wherein the enclosure has at least part of its walls transparent thereby enabling users to see inside the enclosure ([0054]; [0079]); wherein the enclosure comprises one or more ports enabling users to access and handle, from outside the enclosure, the inner-elements inside the enclosure while in the operational-state ([0040]); wherein the enclosure comprises locking-means for attaching or affixing the enclosure to the ground, or to a table, or to affixed objects ([0052]; [0076]; affixed objects); wherein the enclosure comprises inflation-means for inflating the enclosure ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Shenosky discloses that the enclosure comprises self-inflating ribs 100 or girds configured to reinforce the enclosure by supporting the walls of the enclosure, wherein the ribs or girds are attached to said walls inside or outside the enclosure, wherein the ribs and girds are configured to be inflated at a high pressure so as to acquire relative rigidity, the ribs and girds are airtight, and wherein the ribs and girds comprise means for autonomous inflation or means for inflation from an external pump ([0041]; [0044]-[0047]).
Regarding claims 4-6, Shenosky discloses that the enclosure comprises one or more of the following: inward protuberances; gloves 60; and sleeves attached to the enclosure at positions that are convenient for performing the intended task; wherein the positions, dimensions and materials of the protuberances, gloves, and sleeves are configured to fit the circumstances of the prospective users and of the specific-tasks to be performed; wherein circumstances of the prospective users comprise one or more of the following: the age of the intended users, the hand and finger size of the prospective users, and the physical and mental abilities of the prospective users; wherein the specific-tasks to be performed comprise one or more of the following: preparing materials, preparing tools, and preparing equipment for in-the-field medical interventions; performing medical training and/or medical tests; preparing materials, tools and equipment for military in-the-field operations and missions; performing in-the-field tests or experiments; performing scientific and technical experiments for training or educating juveniles and young students, wherein one or more of the inward protuberances are shaped as fingers disposed such that the user can pinch, squeeze or otherwise manipulate objects or materials inside the enclosure, wherein one or more inward protuberances are shaped according to the shape of specific tools or instruments that the users need to manipulate during the task accomplishment, and wherein the specific tools are pre-attached to the protuberances ([0040]; the claims only require at least one of the listed components; Shenosky teaches gloves; claims 5 and 6 further specify the inward protuberances but do not require that the inward protuberances are part of the claimed invention; the gloves taught by Shenosky are capable of meeting all of the intended-use limitations of claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Shenosky discloses that the inflation-means comprise one or more of the following: compressed gas cartridges and packed chemicals that, when put in contact, generate the required volume of gas for the enclosure inflation; wherein the inflation-means are autonomous self-inflation means ([0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Shenosky discloses that the enclosure walls are configured to be impermeable, resistant, and inert to materials and substances inside the enclosure; and wherein the said materials and substances comprise one or more of the following: materials and chemicals used or generated during testing, experiments and procedures performed during the specific-tasks; materials generated by chemical reactions; chemical acids; chemical bases; chemical noxious compounds; noxious gases; toxic materials or materials that produce toxic vapors or liquids; materials that produce noxious particles; nano-materials that are hazardous to the human body; biological materials or microorganisms; and materials or compounds that are noxious or inconvenient for direct contact or open-atmosphere manipulation ([0037]; materials and substances not positively recited as part of the claimed invention; polyvinyl chloride is capable of meeting these intended uses).
Regarding claim 12, Shenosky discloses one or more of the following elements configured to enable task performance: electrical devices and equipment; electronic devices; magnetic materials; electronic circuits ([0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 13, Shenosky discloses one or more of the following elements configured to enable task performance: measurement devices, sensors, signal processing devices, process control devices, data communication means, and computing devices ([0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 14, Shenosky discloses one or more of the following elements configured to enable task performance: devices and tools for manipulating materials; squeezers; dispensers; sticks for mixing; electrical mixers; small heating or cooling elements; and receptacles of various forms ([0074]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 18, Shenosky discloses cable-ports configured to accommodate one or more power supply cables and signal carrying cables securely and air-tightly traversing the enclosure wall through the cable-ports ([0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 37, Shenosky discloses antennas and/or communication devices, wherein the antennas and the communication devices are incorporated into the enclosure's walls and/or are disposed on the walls ([0077]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 42, Shenosky discloses that in the deflated-state the utilitarian-container comes as a prepacked-kit configured to be deployed in the operational-state by inflating the enclosure ([0042]).
Claims 1, 9, 15, 20-23, 28, 32, 35, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breegi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0074268 A1; hereinafter known as “Breegi”).
Regarding claim 1, Breegi discloses a utilitarian-container enabling users to perform specific-tasks (Abstract; Fig. 4), the utilitarian-container comprising: (a). an inflatable, flexible, and fluids-impermeable enclosure 36 ([0038]; [0042]); (b). an experiment-kit comprising a plurality of inner-elements disposed inside the enclosure, wherein the inner-elements further comprise materials, devices, and tools for performing the specific-tasks ([0041]-[0042]; [0045]); wherein the utilitarian-container comes in at least the following configurations: a deflated-state, an operational-state, and a discard-state ([0038]; [0051]; collapsible/deflated, operational/expandable/inflated, and disposable); wherein, in the deflated-state and the operational-state, the configurations and positions of the inner-elements inside the enclosure are pre-arranged such as to enable users to efficiently perform the specific-tasks ([0038]; [0051]); wherein the enclosure has at least part of its walls transparent thereby enabling users to see inside the enclosure ([0039]); wherein the enclosure comprises one or more ports enabling users to access and handle, from outside the enclosure, the inner-elements inside the enclosure while in the operational-state ([0040]-[0041]); wherein the enclosure comprises locking-means for attaching or affixing the enclosure to the ground, or to a table, or to affixed objects ([0044]); wherein the enclosure comprises inflation-means for inflating the enclosure ([0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Breegi discloses that the walls of the enclosure comprise one or more regions that allow the airtight insertion through the enclosure of needles or other thin devices and tools, or a combination of them, while the wall recovers its airtight property after the inserted device is removed ([0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Breegi discloses one or more of the following elements configured to enable task performance: noxious gas absorbers, absorbers for noxious or undesired fluids used or generated during task performance, chemical or biological neutralizers and absorbers ([0010]-[0011]; [0016]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Breegi discloses outward protuberances, disposed on the wall of the enclosure, formed as handles and grips for manipulation of the utilitarian-container by the users (), and one or several attachment-means configured to secure of the enclosure on the ground or on larger objects, wherein the attachment-means comprise one or more of the following: belts, strips, suction cups, other suction devices that ([0044]).
Regarding claim 21, Breegi discloses that the container is reusable and includes kits of materials and receptacles for several successively performed tasks or for task repetitions; wherein the container is configured to be reusable with or without deflation and re-inflation ([0048]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 22, Breegi discloses that the enclosure is configured to be deflated and re-inflated, and wherein the utilitarian-container further comprises:means for controlled deflation comprising controlled gas valves, taps, and other deflation-means; and means for controlled re-inflation comprising kits for gas generation, pressurized cartridges, external pumps, other rei-inflation means ([0042]).
Regarding claim 23, Breegi discloses that the container is reusable ([0051]) and comprises: one or more airtight ports allowing for the removal of consumed materials and tools and for the replacement with other materials and tools for further use, wherein the airtight ports have means for resealing comprising one or more of airtight zips, re-sealable adhesive tapes, other resealing means ([0041]).
Regarding claim 28, Breegi discloses locking-means for attaching the enclosure to the ground or surroundings, the locking-means comprising one or more of the following: belts, clamps, anchors, buckles, touch fasteners (Velcros), pegs, shackles, magnets, snap fasteners, suction pumps, adhesive strips, and the like ([0044]).
Regarding claim 32, Breegi discloses light sources configured to light the inside of the enclosure ([0010]; [0016]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 35, Breegi discloses one or more optical-components configured to allow for better viewing the inside of the enclosure and for performing optical experiments, the optical-components comprising one or more of the following: magnifying glasses; optical lenses; polarizing films; diffraction gratings; lasers; light sources ([0010]; [0016]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 39, Breegi discloses materials or prepacked materials for neutralizing of the noxious compounds resulted from the experiment, including neutralizers for noxious gases and liquids ([0010]-[0011]; [0016]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 40, Breegi discloses that the bottom of the enclosure comprises one or more of the following: a structurally reinforced region, sensors, devices, heaters for mild heating, planar inductances and capacitances for experiments, coils for creating rotating magnetic fields for magnetic stirrers, and cables for connecting electric devices inside the container with external devices ([0043]-[0044]).
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenosky as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Avant (U.S. No. 10,982,486 B1). Shenosky discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the enclosure comprises one or more magnifying glasses or systems of glasses to allow better observation of the inside of the enclosure. Avant discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) comprising one or more magnifying glasses or systems of glasses 155 to allow better observation of the inside of the enclosure in order to allow medical personnel to see more clearly (col. 3, lines 43-48). 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 of Shenosky with a magnifying glass, as taught by Avant, in order to allow medical personnel to see more clearly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Menezes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0330918 A1; hereinafter known as “Menezes”). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose a differential pressure sensor connected to an alarm configured to generate an alarm-signal when the inside pressure is too low or too high for safe use, wherein the alarm may be generated locally, at a supervisor terminal, and/or over the internet. Menezes discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes a differential pressure sensor connected to an alarm configured to generate an alarm-signal when the inside pressure is too low or too high for safe use, wherein the alarm may be generated locally, at a supervisor terminal, and/or over the internet, in order to indicate if the pressure is too low ([0033]). 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 of Breegi with a differential pressure sensor and alarm, as taught by Menezes, in order to indicate if the pressure is too low within the enclosure.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arts et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0247487 A1; hereinafter known as “Arts”). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose one or more displays, wherein the displays are placed inside the container, embedded in the walls of the container, or placed on the walls in the form of a flexible display, wherein the displays show one or more of the following: measured process parameters, process control values, information for the user, images and videos from inside the enclosure. Arts discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes one or more displays, wherein the displays are placed inside the container, embedded in the walls of the container, or placed on the walls in the form of a flexible display, wherein the displays show one or more of the following: measured process parameters, process control values, information for the user, images and videos from inside the enclosure, in order to provide communication and information ([0103]). 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 of Breegi with such a display, as taught by Arts, in order to provide communication and information.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0096475 A1; hereinafter known as “Lee”). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose one or more magnets configured to allow the user to firmly attach the enclosure to tables or other external objects that are made of or include in their structure iron parts. Lee discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes one or more magnets configured to allow the user to firmly attach the enclosure to tables or other external objects that are made of or include in their structure iron parts in order to attach and secure the enclosure ([0014]; [0016]). 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 of Breegi with such magnets, as taught by Lee, in order to attach and secure the enclosure.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 114601660 A). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose visual indicators for overpressure. Hu discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes visual indicators 233 for overpressure in order to indicate an abnormal pressure. 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 of Breegi with such visual indicators for overpressure, as taught by Hu, in order to indicate an abnormal pressure.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poenisch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0136024 A1; hereinafter known as “Poenisch”). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose sensors configured to detect corrosion or otherwise degradation of the enclosure wall. Poenisch discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes sensors configured to detect corrosion or otherwise degradation of the enclosure wall in order to detect leaks and remove and replace leaking gloves ([0035]). 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 of Breegi with such sensors, as taught by Poenisch, in order to detect leaks and remove and replace leaking gloves.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garza et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0056125 A1; hereinafter known as “Garza”). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose cleaning-means configured to remove liquid and particulate residues from inside the enclosure, the cleaning-means comprising one or more of the following: sponges; fabric; dust cloths; magnet-operated sponges or fabric. Garza discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes cleaning-means configured to remove liquid and particulate residues from inside the enclosure, the cleaning-means comprising one or more of the following: sponges; fabric; dust cloths; magnet-operated sponges or fabric in order to sterilize tools and items after use and avoid patient contamination ([0022]). 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 of Breegi with such cleaning-means, as taught by Garza, in order to sterilize tools and items after use and avoid patient contamination.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Esses et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0145711 A1; hereinafter known as “Esses”). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the enclosure walls comprise a dark light reducing part or side configured to absorb bright uncomfortable light inside the enclosure. Esses discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes a dark light reducing part or side configured to absorb bright uncomfortable light inside the enclosure in order to provide patient privacy ([0024]). 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 of Breegi with such a dark light reducing part or side configured to absorb bright uncomfortable light inside the enclosure, as taught by Esses, in order to provide patient privacy.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forsell (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0008081 A1). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose one or more of the following: inductances, antennas, and circuits configured to provide contactless power supply for powering the devices inside the container. Forsell discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes inductances, antennas, or circuits configured to provide contactless power supply for powering the devices inside the container in order to transfer power while allowing the enclosure to remain sealed ([0822]). 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 of Breegi with such a contactless power supply, as taught by Forsell, in order to transfer power while allowing the enclosure to remain sealed.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yaari (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0247033 A1). Breegi discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose one or more sensors incorporated into enclosure's walls. Yaari discloses a similar apparatus (Abstract) that includes one or more sensors incorporated into enclosure's walls in order to detect strain, tears, damage, or failure of the wall ([0236]). 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 of Breegi with such a sensor incorporated into the enclosure's walls, as taught by Yaari, in order to detect strain, tears, damage, or failure of the walls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 16, 24-26, 34, and 41 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: regarding claim 11, while numbering and color-coding of components is known in the art, none of the prior art teaches or reasonably suggests such numbered or color coded inner-elements as recited in the claim, in combination with such a utilitarian-container. Regarding claim 16, while safety-valves are known in the art, none of the prior art teaches or reasonably suggests such safety valves and supplementary containers as recited in the claim, in combination with such a utilitarian-container. Regarding claims 24-26, while electrical and electromagnetic shielding, such as Faraday cages, are known in the art, none of the prior art teaches or reasonably suggests such electrical or electromagnetic shielding or magnetic materials for magnetism experiments as recited in the claims, in combination with such a utilitarian-container. Regarding claim 34, while safety-valves are known in the art, none of the prior art teaches or reasonably suggests such a safety mechanism as recited in the claim, in combination with such a utilitarian-container. Regarding claim 41, while sensors, cameras, and machine learning are known generally in the art, none of the prior art teaches or reasonably suggests such sensors or camera, along with data processing modules for running ML algorithms to create performance-parameters for use as recited in the claim, in combination with such a utilitarian-container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0116770 A1 and U.S. Nos. 5,950,625 and 5,316,541 teach similar inflatable containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights