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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the chemical shelf” in line 6 should read “the medicine shelf”. “inner spaces of the pillars” in line 6 should read “inner spaces of the pillar parts”. “an intake duct installed to communicate with an intake grill” in line 8 should read “an intake duct installed to communicate with the intake grill”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to be space apart from each other” should read “to be spaced apart from each other”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “up to a height of a ceil” should read “up to a height of a ceiling”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “a dust collection device installed in a lower space of the workbench and connected to the intake duct”
Claim 4: “a purification part installed inside the device case to be connected to the intake duct, thereby filtering out harmful gases”
Claim 5: “a filter module installed to be spaced apart by a certain distance from left and right side walls and upper wall of the filter box”
Claim 7: “a plasma module of generating negative ions is installed on one side of the exhaust port”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the dust collection device of 1 and 3-4, the corresponding structure described in the subsequent claims is an assembly comprising “purification part” (claim 4), and “an exhaust fan” (claim 4).
With regards to the purification part of claims 4-5, the corresponding structure described in the subsequent claims is an assembly comprising “a filter box”, “an intake port” and “a filter module” (claim 5).
With regards to the filter module of claims 5-6, the corresponding structure described in the subsequent claims is an assembly comprising “multi-filters comprising a pre-filter, a carbon filter, and a HEPA filter”, “a filter housing” and “an exhaust port” (claim 6).
With regards to the plasma module of claim 7, the corresponding structure described in [page 14 lines 3-6] of the specification is that of a “negative ion generator”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR100956016B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in view of Oh (KR101809207B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Cha teaches
an experimentation table integrated with a harmful gas reduction and air purification system (fig. 1), the experimentation table comprising:
a medicine shelf (shelf 32) installed above a workbench (experiment table 16);
pillar parts formed on opposite sides of the workbench to support the medicine shelf (vertical columns 21 and 22); and
an air purification system that ensures that harmful gases generated from the workbench are discharged through a lower space of the chemical shelf (inflow upper case 24) and inner spaces of the pillars (air discharged through inflow upper case 24 into vertical column 22), wherein the air purification system comprises an intake grill formed using a lower space of the medicine shelf (plurality of inflow openings 24a);
an intake duct installed to communicate with an intake grill using inner spaces of the pillar parts (as shown on figs. 2-3, within vertical column 22); and
Cha does not teach
a dust collection device installed in a lower space of the workbench and connected to the intake duct
Oh teaches
a dust collection device installed in a lower space of the workbench (exhaust purification apparatus 200 below table body 100, fig. 1) and connected to the intake duct (connected to hood duct 300)
Cha teaches a filter member 26 and blower 28 installed within vertical column 22 for the filtering of toxic substances from the experiment table 16. However, the filter and fan system are limited by the narrow cross section of the vertical column 22. The exhaust purification apparatus 200 and table body 100 structure of Oh allows for a much greater sized filter and fan arrangement, thus allowing for greater performance of the purification system. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the purification system of Cha with the exhaust purification apparatus 200 of Oh, wherein the exhaust purification apparatus 200 is connected with the duct of discharge hole 30 of Cha (“Through the discharge hole 30 on one surface of the discharge port 22, (Not shown) to be communicated with the main body 30, and then discharged to the outside through a duct (not shown)” [page 2 lines 28-30 of Cha]), in order to allow for improved performance of the purification system to ensure safety of the user.
Regarding claim 2, Cha, as modified, does not teach the experimentation table according to claim 1,
wherein the intake grill forms an inclined surface such that a grill surface extending along a transverse direction of the workbench faces from a rear upper side of the workbench to a front lower side thereof
However, while Cha, as modified, does not teach the plurality of inflow openings 24a forming an inclined surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure plurality of inflow openings 24a as such as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (page 17 line 18 to page 18 line 3 of applicant’s 11/27/2023 disclosure states “the present disclosure provides a grill surface, which extends along the transverse direction of a workbench, provided to form an inclined surface from the upper rear side of the workbench toward the lower front side of the workbench, thereby being capable of suctioning and removing harmful gases and cross-contamination substances from a wide area”; however, the inflow openings 24a extend along the transverse direction of a workbench, thus being capable of suctioning and removing harmful gases and cross-contamination substances from a wide area; an inclined structure does not have an effect on the capability removing harmful gases and cross-contamination substances from a wide area). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Regarding claim 3, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 1,
wherein the dust collection device is moved in a state of being separated from the intake duct by installing a moving caster at a bottom of a device case (“A wheel for moving the exhaust purification apparatus is mounted on a lower portion of the exhaust purification apparatus, and the hood duct is detachably coupled to an upper portion of the exhaust purification apparatus”) [0008 of Oh]
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR100956016B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in view of Oh (KR101809207B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in further view of Choi (KR20230123807A), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026.
Regarding claim 4, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 3,
wherein the dust collection device comprises: a purification part installed inside the device case to be connected to the intake duct, thereby filtering out harmful gases (“The exhaust purification apparatus 200 includes a suction fan (not shown) for sucking outside air, a filter (not shown) for filtering contaminants and fine dust in the sucked outside air”) [0021 of Oh]
Cha, as modified, does not teach
an exhaust fan installed on an exhaust side of the purification part
Choi teaches
an exhaust fan installed on an exhaust side of the purification part (motor 400 on exhaust side of purification module 300, fig. 2)
Oh teaches a suction fan in [0021], however does not further describe the structure within exhaust purification apparatus 200. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to install the exhaust fan on an exhaust side of the filter, as taught in Choi, so that a negative pressure is created through the filter section thereby preventing leakage.
Regarding claim 5, Cha, as modified, does not teach the experimentation table according to claim 4,
wherein the purification part comprises: a filter box having a closed space thereinside;
an intake port formed on an upper side of the filter box to be connected to the intake duct; and
a filter module installed to be spaced apart by a certain distance from left and right side walls and upper wall of the filter box, wherein fluid guide plates forming an inclined surface in an outward direction are formed between each of left and right walls of the filter box and the filter module such that a suction fluid, distributed to left and right through a distribution passage at an upper part of the filter box is collected on sides of the filter module
Choi teaches
wherein the purification part comprises: a filter box having a closed space thereinside (chamber 100);
an intake port formed on an upper side of the filter box to be connected to the intake duct (intake port 312, figs. 2-4); and
a filter module installed to be spaced apart by a certain distance from left and right side walls and upper wall of the filter box (purification module 300, spaced apart from walls of chamber 100 as shown on fig. 2)
wherein fluid guide plates forming an inclined surface in an outward direction are formed between each of left and right walls of the filter box and the filter module such that a suction fluid, distributed to left and right through a distribution passage at an upper part of the filter box is collected on sides of the filter module (shaped structure 370, fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the filter construction of Choi to the system of Cha, as modified, since it “is portable and easy to install and maintains the purification filter” [0001 of Choi]. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the shaped structure 370 of fig. 6 of Choi, since “The dome shape allows gas sufficiently remaining in the airflow space 311 to flow into each area of the purification filter 320 at uniform pressure and flow rate. The dome shape resolves the imbalance of gas inflow due to the intake port 312 being located in the central area of the housing 310” [0043 of Choi].
Regarding claim 6, Cha, as modified, does not teach the experimentation table according to claim 5,
wherein the filter module comprises: multi-filters comprising a pre-filter, a carbon filter, and a HEPA filter; a filter housing on both left and right sides of which the multi-filters are symmetrically arranged and which secures a back pressure-forming part of a certain space by placing the multi-filters on opposite sides to be space apart from each other; and an exhaust port formed to communicate with an exhaust fan on a lower side of the back pressure-forming part
Choi teaches
wherein the filter module comprises: multi-filters comprising a pre-filter (first purification filter 320), a carbon filter (“the second purification filter 330 includes basic impregnated activated carbon impregnated with a substance capable of adsorbing basic substances”) [0031], and a HEPA filter (“the fourth purification filter 350 may be a HEPA filter” [0039]);
a filter housing on both left and right sides of which the multi-filters are symmetrically arranged (housing 310; symmetrically arranged as shown on fig. 4) and which secures a back pressure-forming part of a certain space (between each of the filters via support plates 315 to 318, fig. 4) by placing the multi-filters on opposite sides to be space apart from each other (filters placed on opposite sides of each of support plates 315 to 318, thus forming back pressure forming part between each filter); and
an exhaust port formed to communicate with an exhaust fan on a lower side of the back pressure-forming part (exhaust port 313, below spaces between each of the filters as shown on fig. 4)
While Oh teaches a filter within exhaust purification apparatus 200, it does not further describe the filter structure. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the filter structure of purification module 300 of Choi to Cha, as modified, in order to provide multiple filter layers to ensure effective purification of the exhaust air for the safety of a user.
Regarding claim 8, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 6,
wherein both left and right sides of the filter housing is opened to form a suction fluid entry part (entire area across air flow space 311 of Choi, from left to right walls of housing 310, is opened to suction fluid into filter components 320-350 via suction force of motor 400)
Regarding claim 9, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 8,
wherein a flow distribution plate is installed at the suction fluid entry part (top wall of housing 310 of Choi, forming upper flow surface with shaped structure 370 on fig. 6 of Choi)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR100956016B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in view of Oh (KR101809207B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026 and Choi (KR20230123807A), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in further view of Meng (CN204460504U), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026.
Regarding claim 7, Cha, as modified, does not teach teaches the experimentation table according to claim 6,
wherein a plasma module of generating negative ions is installed on one side of the exhaust port
Meng teaches
wherein a plasma module of generating negative ions is installed on one side of the exhaust port (“The high-energy particle purification filter 8 generates high-energy particles, such as plasma, negative ions, positive ions, ozone, etc., through the discharge device” [page 3 lines 45-46 of Meng]; installed on an opposite side of baffle 3 of the exhaust port adjacent fan 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional high-energy particle purification filter 8 of Meng to Cha, as modified, in order to additionally “strongly purify harmful substances such as VOC, odor, bacteria, viruses, etc. in the air” [page 3 lines 46-47 of Meng].
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR100956016B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in view of Oh (KR101809207B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in further view of Luedl (WO2023094687A1), referring to US20250025880A1 for translation.
Regarding claim 10, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 1,
wherein each of the pillar parts comprises a module frame having a hollow tube shape (hollow tube shape of vertical columns 21 and 22 shown on fig. 2)
Cha, as modified, does not teach
a frame cover detachably coupled to a rail on one side surface of the module frame
Luedl teaches
a frame cover detachably coupled to a rail on one side surface of the module frame (“a media column 1 for distributing gaseous and/or liquid media in a laboratory 100 comprises a carrier body 2 which extends in the vertical direction and on the front side 2 f of which at least one module element 10 , but preferably a plurality of module elements 10 . 1 , 10 . 2 and 10 . 3 , are detachably fastened one above the other, to which the media, such as gaseous and liquid media, e.g. technical gases, compressed air and water, coolant and vacuum, as well as electrical current and communication, are supplied via corresponding supply lines 120”) [0035]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the module element 10 structure of Luedl (fig. 1 and 7) to vertical column 22 of Cha, as modified, in order to allow for provide utility lines necessary for laboratory table functions through the ceiling and along the vertical column 22, thus preventing obstructive lines in the floor area.
Regarding claim 12, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 10,
wherein a joint member is connected to an upper part of the pillar part to extend a pillar extension, and a hollow pipe of the pillar extension is used to provide a supply line connected from the ceiling to various utilities (“Said blind module 10 . 3 extends, as shown for example in FIG. 3 , as far as the second upper end 20 of the inherently rigid profile 2 , and covers the supply lines 120 (not shown in further detail) which are fastened thereto and which are guided in the interior of the housing 12 from the upper end 20 of the inherently rigid profile as far as the respective extraction fittings 14” [0050 of Luedl])
However, while Cha, as modified, does not teach a pillar extension up to a height of a ceil, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure blind module 10.3 of Luedl applied to Cha as such, as these changes in configuration are a matter of design when the particular configuration result in no change in system performance. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant; applicant has not cited mechanical significance of the recited configuration to perform differently than the prior art device in the disclosure (see page 16 lines 7-10 of applicant’s 11/27/2023 disclosure). Therefore, the claim is given no distinguishable patentability.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (KR100956016B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in view of Oh (KR101809207B1), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026, in further view of Luedl (WO2023094687A1), referring to US20250025880A1 for translation, in further view of Hemling (EP1340546A2), referring to the English translation dated 02/04/2026.
Regarding claim 11, Cha, as modified, teaches the experimentation table according to claim 10,
wherein utilities comprising an electric outlet (“preferably two or more module elements 10 . 1 , 10 . 2 for the same or also for different media and/or for electricity and data are detachably received”) [0049 of Luedl], a faucet, a gas valve, an air valve (“technical gases, compressed air and water”) [0035 of Luedl], are installed using the frame cover of the pillar part (fig. 1)
Cha, as modified, does not teach
wherein utilities comprising a cock, an LCD module panel, and a power ON/OFF switch are installed using the frame cover of the pillar part
Hemling teaches
wherein utilities comprising a cock (“rotary knob is shown in order, for example, to set an electrical voltage to a specific value”) [0014], a module panel (“Media connections 14 are arranged on the front side 10, wherein in the context of this application, control elements, display elements, actuating elements, etc.” [0014]), and a power ON/OFF switch (there are two mutually located keypads for switching media on and off) are installed using the frame cover of the pillar part (media connection element 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cock, module panel, and power ON/OFF switch of Hemling to the pillar cover part of Cha, as modified, in order to provide additional tools for a user to utilize on the pillar and thus “ensure supply with different media at workstations in compartments or laboratories without having to maintain a rigid space distribution” [0002 of Hemling].
While Hemling does not explicitly teach the display elements as an LCD module panel, Examiner takes Official notice that LCD panels are extremely well-known in the art, therefore it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make modified Cha’s module panel an LCD module panel, as claimed, since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions (LCD, LED, CRT, etc. displays), and utilizing an LCD module panel would offer known benefits such as thin, lightweight, and energy-efficient design. Thus, making the display element an LCD panel would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art of record not relied upon includes:
Lee (KR101410430B1), which teaches a similar experimentation table to that claimed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT P. MALLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 8am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/BRETT P. MALLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762