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 Objections
Claim(s) 19, 23 and 26-27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, Ln. 3 recites “the intake of the ventilator” which should read “an intake of the ventilator” as it is a first introduction
Claim 23, Ln. 1 recites “the CO2 value” which should read “a CO2 value” as it is a first introduction
Claim 26, Ln. 2 recites “the outlet side of the ventilator” which should read “an outlet side of the ventilator” as it is a first introduction
Claim 27, Ln. 1 recites “the tubing” which should read “the tubing system” for consistency with claim 26
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.
Claim(s) 24, 26-27 and 29-30 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the coverall” in Ln. 1 which deems the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the cleanroom coverall as a whole or specifically to the coverall suit, both from claim 16. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the coverall suit”. The same issue is also present in claim 27.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 30 recites the limitation “if applicable” in Ln. 3 which deems the claim indefinite. The phrasing “if applicable” implies some form of contingent evaluation. However, the claim fails to set forth any parameters to enable an understanding of what conditions, timing, situation, etc. would be considered being suitably “applicable” to require the subsequent information of the claim. There is thus a question left as to whether the “applicable” would ever need to be satisfied. Applicant is requested to clarify in the claim the conditions which would relate to the phrasing “if applicable”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the CO2 measurement means and/or the alarm system and/or the battery power” in Ln. 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The CO2 measurement “device” is introduced in claim 21 while the alarm system and the battery power are introduced in claim 29. Due to the confusions in claim dependency the claim cannot be clearly examined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 uses the term “optionally” in Ln. 2 indicating that everything following that term is not positively recited by the claim. Thus, at a minimum the claim only recites “said coupling means couples to the ventilator”. However, that limitation is already required by the “is coupled” language in claim 17. The instant claim thus fails to positively require anything beyond the claim upon which it depends. It is suggested in order to overcome the present rejection to remove the term “optionally” in the claim so that all recitations in the claim are positively recited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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”) (claims 17 and 19) 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.
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.
The corresponding structure for the “coupling means” is best understood from the specification as at least: coupling means 60 which uses a click system in the form of a male portion 61 having projections to click into recesses of the ventilator 30 or an alternate coupling means 60 which couples indirectly to the ventilator 30 by way of a tube (e.g. ¶¶0050, 0052 of the PGPub copy of the instant application).
The corresponding structure for the “fluid guiding means” is best understood from the specification as at least: a tube (e.g. ¶0050 of the PGPub copy of the instant application).
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 § 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 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.
(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) 16-19 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kienhofer et al. (U.S. Patent 4127122).
Regarding claim 16, Kienhofer discloses a coverall (Fig. 2; Col. 1, Ln. 18-23 – entire body; Col. 2, Ln. 62-68 – worn underneath protective clothing) useable in a cleanroom comprising a coverall suit (Col. 1, Ln. 18-23 & Col. 2, Ln. 62-68 – protective clothing for entire body), a ventilator (Fig. 2 #14; Col. 2, Ln. 38-48) positioned inside said coverall suit (Col. 2, Ln. 62-68 – worn underneath protective clothing), the ventilator being fluidly connected to the ambient of the cleanroom coverall (Col. 1, Ln. 37-45 – draws ambient air; Col. 2, Ln. 62-68 – ambient air drawn via inlets 5, 6), wherein between the ambient of the cleanroom coverall and the ventilator, a one-way valve (Fig. 2 #30; Col. 3, Ln. 4-19) is present, the one-way valve being situated upstream the ventilator (Fig. 2 – valve 30 is upstream of fan 14), the one-way valve opens when the ventilator is active (Col. 3, Ln. 4-19 – valve disc 31 is maintained open by the air stream driven by the fans).
Regarding claim 17, Kienhofer discloses the ventilator is coupled to the coverall suit by means of a coupling means (Col. 2, Ln. 62-68 – airtight connection). The airtight connection of Kienhofer is readable as at least a functional equivalent of one form of the disclosed coupling means of the instant application which is just a tube connection (see above 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation).
Regarding claim 18, Kienhofer discloses the one-way valve is part of the coupling means (Fig. 2 – valve 30 is in tubing upstream of fan 14).
Regarding claim 19, Kienhofer discloses said coupling means couples to the ventilator (Fig. 2 – tubing couples to fan 14),
Regarding claim 26, Kienhofer discloses the coverall suit comprises a hood portion (Col. 1, Ln. 18-23 – “entire body” includes head; see also discussion of helmet in Col. 3, Ln. 40-41), an outlet side of the ventilator (Fig. 2 top of #14) is coupled to a tubing system (Fig. 2 #12), the tubing system being adapted to bring air to the hood portion of the coverall suit (Fig. 2; Col. 3, Ln. 40-41).
Regarding claim 27, Kienhofer discloses the tubing system extends into the hood portion of the coverall suit (Col. 3, Ln. 40-41 – to the helmet).
Regarding claim 28, Kienhofer discloses the cleanroom coverall comprises an integrated hood part (Col. 1, Ln. 18-23 – “entire body” includes head; see also discussion of helmet in Col. 3, Ln. 40-41). The term “integrated” is not understood to require the hood part to be a singular piece of material together with the coverall suit.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienhofer et al. (U.S. Patent 4127122) in view of Avery et al. (U.S. Pub. 2003/0192103).
Regarding claim 21, Kienhofer fails to disclose a CO2 measurement device is present inside the coverall suit.
Avery teaches a protective suit (e.g. Fig. 1) and teaches that European protective hood regulations require that carbon dioxide concentration measured just in front of the wearer's lips not exceed 1% (¶0008). Avery thus teaches as obvious the measuring of carbon dioxide inside of a protective garment as ensuring proper compliance with regulatory standards.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Kienhofer a CO2 measurement device is present inside the coverall suit in order to provide the benefit of ensuring proper compliance with regulatory standards in regards to maximum carbon dioxide levels within a protective hood in view of Avery.
Regarding claim 22, Kienhofer teaches the invention as modified above and together with Avery suggests as obvious the CO2 measurement device is communicatively coupled to the ventilator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected that an immediate intervention would be required for carbon dioxide levels exceeding safety standards, with an increase in speed of the fans of Kienhofer as the most expected response in order to improve CO2 clearance from the coverall.
Regarding claim 23, Kienhofer teaches the invention as modified above and together with Avery suggests as obvious a CO2 value measured by the CO2 measurement device is used to control the ventilation and/or ventilation speed of the ventilator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected that an immediate intervention would be required for carbon dioxide levels exceeding safety standards, with an increase in speed of the fans of Kienhofer as the most expected response in order to improve CO2 clearance from the coverall.
Regarding claim 24, Kienhofer teaches the invention as modified above and together with Avery suggests as obvious the cleanroom coverall further comprises an alarm system, generating an alarm signal, such as a visual, tangible and/or auditive signal, when the CO2 value measured by the CO2 measurement device exceeds a threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously expected that an immediate response to detecting carbon dioxide levels exceeding safety standards would be to issue an alarm to notify the user that their safety may be at risk. Note additionally that Kienhofer does already teach a further alarm system which responds to a detect that fan flow has dropped to an unsafe level (Col. 1, Ln. 68 – Col. 2, Ln. 4).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienhofer et al. (U.S. Patent 4127122) in view of Jascomb et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0060359).
Regarding claim 25, Kienhofer is silent as to whether the ventilator has a noise output level less than or equal to 80dB.
Jascomb teaches a personal protection and ventilation system (e.g. Fig. 23) and teaches that keeping decibel levels to less than 80 is desirable in the art to improve the ability for a user to hear the speech of another person (¶¶0078, 0172-0173, including Table 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Kienhofer the ventilator has a noise output level less than or equal to 80dB in order to provide the benefit of improving the ability of a user to hear the speech of another person in view of Jascomb.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kienhofer et al. (U.S. Patent 4127122) in view of Klockseth et al. (U.S. Patent 5906203).
Regarding claim 29, Kienhofer discloses the cleanroom coverall comprises a battery (Fig. 2 #18, 19; Col. 2, Ln. 49-58).
Kienhofer fails to disclose an alarm system, the alarm system generating an alarm signal, such as a visual, tangible and/or auditive signal, when the battery power goes under a threshold value.
Klockseth teaches a protective breathing apparatus (e.g. Fig. 1) including a voltmeter to measure battery charge and a processing unit to generate a warning signal for a user when battery charge falls before a threshold level (Col. 4, Ln. 37-44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Kienhofer an alarm system, the alarm system generating an alarm signal when the battery power goes under a threshold value in order to provide the benefit of generating a warning signal for a user when battery charge falls before a threshold level in view of Klockseth.
Regarding claim 30, Kienhofer fails to disclose the cleanroom coverall is communicatively coupled to a controller, said controller getting status information on the ventilator, and if applicable the CO2 measurement means and/or the alarm system and/or the battery power. It is noted that the “if applicable” in the claim does not need to ever be fulfilled for reading on the claim.
Klockseth teaches a protective breathing apparatus (e.g. Fig. 1) including a controller (Col. 6, Ln. 23-31 – control unit), said controller getting status information on a fan (Col. 6, Ln. 23-31 – monitors and controls fan speed). Klockseth teaches a controller getting status information on a fan as providing the benefit of ensuring the fan is operating at its expected and desired speed (Col. 6, Ln. 23-31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Kienhofer the cleanroom coverall is communicatively coupled to a controller, said controller getting status information on the ventilator in order to provide the benefit of ensuring the fan is operating at its expected and desired speed in view of Klockseth. It is again noted that the “if applicable” in the claim does not need to ever be fulfilled for reading on the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 20 is/are 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:
Regarding claim 20, Kienhofer fails to teach or suggest said coupling means comprises a click system. The instant claim does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). One of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered it prima facie obvious to have specified a click coupling system in Kienhofer.
It is noted that no other prior art is readable on claim 16 because of its particular directional (e.g. one-way valve upstream of the ventilator), orientational (one-way valve between ambient and the ventilator) and functional recitations (one-way valve opens when the ventilator is active), and given the specific context of a cleanroom coverall.
Vanneste (U.S. Pub. 2020/0359714) is a prior art which teaches a click coupling for a ventilator to a cleanroom coverall (e.g. Figs. 12A-12F & 14). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found a reasonable relationship between the teachings of Kienhofer and Vanneste to have combined them in order to have read on the instant claim.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights