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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/4/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. To elaborate, although TW I220004 B (B9) is noted as corresponding to A1, the drawings in the provided copy of TW I220004 B and the drawings in US 5350336 A are completely different, so it is unclear how the English content of US 5350336 A corresponds to TW I220004 B. In addition, no English translation or explanation of relevance has been provided for the 8 page Chinese-language Office Action (C4). Therefore, the provided copies of TW I220004 B and 8 page Chinese-language Office Action have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
In the amendment to the specification dated 11/20/23, Par. 0009 discloses “In the specification, the first embodiment is described as a reference embodiment”. It’s understood that the Applicant’s invention is directed to the second embodiment, i.e., Fig. 7.
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 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 8, line 2: air handling unit. The nonce term “unit” is modified by functional language “air handling” and “air whose temperature is adjusted by”. The corresponding structure to achieve the claimed function is a filter, cooling coil, fan, and inverter, as specified in Par. 0021, last two lines, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura (JP 2000337675 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 11/20/2023 IDS).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Nishimura ‘675.
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura disclose an air conditioning system (Par. 0010, clean room apparatus, which includes an air resistance member that is used for cooling; therefore the clean room apparatus is an ‘air conditioning system’) comprising:
a first unit (Pars. 0016-0017, FFU 20) including a first fan (Par. 0016, air supply fan 22) that performs air supply to a clean room (Par. 0016, clean room 11) provided inside a predetermined room (Fig. 1 and Par. 0015, air supply space 14, which includes an indoor space serving a designated purpose or room; therefore, air supply space 14 is a ‘predetermined room’) and a first filter (Par. 0016, high efficiency filter 21) that is provided on a blow-out side of the first fan (Fig. 1, high efficiency filter 21 is provided on a blow-out or outlet side of air supply fan 22);
a second unit (Fig. 1, and Par. 0019, exhaust surface 13 and exhaust fan 30) including a second fan (Fig. 1, and Par. 0019, exhaust fan 30) that performs air return from the clean room (Par. 0019, “by operating these exhaust fans 30, air within the clean room 11 is forcibly discharged downward into the exhaust space 15 from the entire exhaust surface 13”); and
a duct shaft (Fig. 1, return air duct 16) that guides air from the clean room to the predetermined room (Par. 0015, “Inside the building 10 , a return air duct 16 is formed on the side of the clean room 11 to connect the air supply space 14 and the exhaust space 15”), wherein
the duct shaft extends in an up-down direction (Fig. 1), and an upper end of the duct shaft is opened (Fig. 1, upper end of return air duct 16 is open to air supply space 14), and
the air guided to the clean room through the first fan is returned to the predetermined room by being sequentially passed through the second fan and the duct shaft (Fig. 1, air guided to clean room 11 through air supply fan 22 is returned to the air supply space 14 by being sequentially passed through the exhaust fan 30 and the return air duct 16).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 2000337675 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 11/20/2023 IDS), in view of Takagaki et al. (JP S61291848 A, hereinafter referred to as Takagaki).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Takagaki ‘848.
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura discloses the air conditioning system according to claim 6.
However, Nishimura does not disclose a filter unit provided in a ceiling of the predetermined room,
wherein the first unit is arranged below the filter unit.
Takagaki discloses an air conditioning method (Pg. 2, Par. 3) similar to the present invention and Takagaki further discloses it is known for a filter unit (Fig. 1, filter 42b) provided in a ceiling of a predetermined room (Fig. 1, filter 42b is provided in the overhead inside lining or ceiling of work room 22),
wherein a first unit (Fig. 1, fan 41c and filter 42c) is arranged below the filter unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nishimura to include the filter unit as taught by Takagaki in order to have another filter in the air conditioning system and thereby add redundancy so air circulating within the air conditioning system will still be at least partially cleaned if the filter in the first unit becomes dysfunctional, such as if it becomes clogged.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 2000337675 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 11/20/2023 IDS), in view of Asami et al. (JP H0560356 A, hereinafter referred to as Asami).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura discloses the air conditioning system according to claim 6, wherein, air whose temperature is adjusted by a cooling coil and a fan (Par. 0020, “A cooling coil 35 is provided in the return air duct 16 as a cooling means, and a blower fan 36 is provided upstream of the cooling coil 35”. Per the Claim Interpretation section above, the ‘air handling unit’ is a filter, cooling coil, fan, and inverter and equivalents thereof. Although Nishimura discloses the cooling coil 35 and fan 36, Nishimura is silent regarding a filter and inverter, therefore, Nishimura does not disclose an equivalent thereof.) is supplied to the predetermined room (Fig. 1 and Par. 0015, air supply space 14).
However, Nishimura does not disclose the air conditioning system according to claim 6, wherein, air whose temperature is adjusted by an air handling unit.
Asami discloses an air conditioner used with a clean room (Par. 0008) similar to the present invention and Asami further discloses it is known for a fan to have a filter (Par. 0014, “the dust removal filters installed in the fan filter units 28”) and be controlled by an inverter (Par. 0020, “The fan installed in the fan filter unit 28 can accurately control the above-mentioned blow-off amount by controlling the minimum wind speed, the maximum wind speed, etc. by an inverter.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cooling coil and fan of Nishimura to include a filter and inverter as disclosed by Asami in order to 1) have another filter in the air conditioning system and thereby add redundancy so dust will still be at least partially removed from air circulating within the air conditioning system (As suggested by Par. 0014 to Asami: “the dust removal filters installed in the fan filter units 28”) if the filter in the first unit becomes dysfunctional, such as if it becomes clogged and 2) adjust the amount of air blown from the fan based on the cleanliness required for the manufacturing happening within the clean room (As suggested by Par. 0021 of Asami: “As described above, according to the clean room of the present invention, the minimum required clean air for maintaining the allowable dust concentration in the clean room is blown from the fan filter unit during the operation of the manufacturing facility. In addition, when taking out semiconductor products from the manufacturing equipment or when maintaining the manufacturing equipment, the air velocity of the clean air blown out from the fan filter unit is increased to maintain high cleanliness. And the atmosphere around the manufacturing facility can be maintained at a high degree of cleanliness”) for increased effectiveness.
With this modification, the device of modified Nishimura would teach “air whose temperature is adjusted by an air handling unit” because Nishimura in view of Asami teaches the ‘air handling unit’ and its equivalents as interpreted in the Claim Interpretation section above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 2000337675 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 11/20/2023 IDS), in view of Matsuzaki et al. (US 11732912 B2, hereinafter referred to as Matsuzaki) and Byczynski et al. (US 20070197159 A1, hereinafter referred to as Byczynski).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Sakamoto ‘317.
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura discloses the air conditioning system according to claim 6, further comprising:
a pressure sensor provided in the clean room (Par. 0017, “air pressure inside the clean room 11 detected by the pressure sensor 26”).
However, Nishimura does not disclose a controller that controls one of the first fan and the second fan based on a detection value of the pressure sensor and controls the other one of the first fan and the second fan at a constant speed, wherein
the fan controlled based on the detection value of the pressure sensor and the fan controlled at the constant speed out of the first fan and the second fan are switchable.
Matsuzaki discloses a room pressure controlling system (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Omura further discloses it is known to have a controller (Col. 15, lines 29-33, “The air supply unit controller 85” and Col. 15, lines 34-42, “air exhaust unit controller 86”) that controls one of a first fan (Col. 15, lines 29-33, fan of fan filter unit 50a, “The air supply unit controller 85 includes power supply circuits for driving the air supply fan filter units 50, 50a, and 50b and control circuits for outputting instructions to control the rotation speed of the fans of the air supply fan filter units 50, 50a, and 50b.”) and a second fan (Col. 15, lines 34-42, fan of fan filter unit 60a, “The air exhaust unit controller 86 includes power supply circuits for driving fan motors of the air exhaust fan filter units 60, 60a, and 60b and control circuits for outputting instructions to control the rotation speed of the fans of the air exhaust fan filter units 60, 60a, and 60b”) based on a detection value of the pressure sensor (Col. 16, lines 12-23, “The air exhaust flow rate from the internal space is adjusted so that the differential pressure by the air supply and the air exhaust converges to the target value of the negative pressure”) and controls the other one of the first fan and the second fan at a constant speed (Col. 16, lines 12-23, “if the rotation speed of the fan on the air supply side is set to the constant speed, it is possible to maintain a substantially constant air supply flow rate as the internal space. If the rotation speed of the fan on the air exhaust side is set to the variable speed, the air exhaust flow rate from the internal space is adjusted under the substantially constant air supply flow rate by the fan on the air supply side”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Nishimura to include the controllers as taught by Omura in order to minimize the hunting phenomenon and thereby stabilize the predetermined room pressure (As suggested by Col. 8, lines 34-45 of Omura: “since the rotation speed of the fan on the air supply side is controlled to the constant speed and the rotation speed of the fan on the air exhaust side is controlled to the variable speed, when the negative pressure formed in the internal space becomes the target value, only the rotation speed of the fan on the air exhaust side is controlled to the variable speed, and thus the occurrence of the hunting phenomenon can be prevented. Generally, if both of the fan on the air supply side and the fan on the air exhaust side are set to the variable speed, periodic fluctuations occur due to the hunting phenomenon, and it becomes difficult to stabilize the room pressure”).
However, Nishimura, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the fan controlled based on the detection value of the pressure sensor and the fan controlled at the constant speed out of the first fan and the second fan are switchable.
NOTE: Matsuzaki discloses the clean booth can be negatively or positively pressured (Col. 2, lines 8-23, “When the clean booth is a positive pressure chamber, it can be said that such contaminants are likely to diffuse outside the booth…when the treatment or the therapy of an affected person of an infectious disease or the like is performed” and a fan set to a constant speed and a fan set to a variable speed can be used to change the pressure from positive to negative (Col. 16, lines 12-23, “If the rotation speed of the fan on the air supply side is set to the constant speed, it is possible to maintain a substantially constant air supply flow rate as the internal space. If the rotation speed of the fan on the air exhaust side is set to the variable speed, the air exhaust flow rate from the internal space is adjusted under the substantially constant air supply flow rate by the fan on the air supply side. The air exhaust flow rate from the internal space is adjusted so that the differential pressure by the air supply and the air exhaust converges to the target value of the negative pressure after the pressure is converted from positive pressure to negative pressure.”
Byczynski discloses a climate control system (Par. 0003) similar to the present invention and Byczynski further discloses it is known for a fan (Par. 0032, fan 56) to be switchable between being controlled based on a detection value of a pressure sensor (Par. 0032, “the fan 56 may operate in a variable speed mode, wherein the speed of the fan 56 is decreased as the pressure difference approaches the positive setpoint and wherein the speed of the fan 56 is increased as the pressure difference departs from the positive setpoint”; Par. 0019, “The positive setpoint is positive in magnitude such that the first pressure is maintained below the second pressure.”; and Par. 0026, “The differential pressure sensor 50 may measure the pressure difference value corresponding to the pressure difference between the first pressure and the second pressure”) and being operated at a constant speed (Par. 0032, “The fan 56 may be switchable between an "on" mode and an "off" mode, wherein the fan 56 operates at a constant speed in the "on" mode.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fan of Nishimura, as modified above, to be switchable, between being controlled based on a detection value of a pressure sensor and being operated at a constant speed as taught by Byczynski in order to prevent moisture from migrating between rooms (As suggested by Par. 0010 of Byczynski: “maintain the pressure difference at the positive setpoint prevent moisture from migrating from the first portion to the second portion”) and thereby mitigate the migration of moisture laden air to rooms whose operation and/or longevity are compromised by moisture (As suggested by Par. 0006 of Byczynski: “The building generally includes a second portion of the building that is not outfitted to be compatible with moist air. The second portion of the building may include several separate rooms or sub-portions. For example, a residential house may have a second portion including a living area and a hotel may have a second portion include guest rooms. In general, the second portion of the building may include moisture sensitive materials such as wood, plush furnishings, plaster, and drywall” and Par. 0007, “In addition, the first portion and the second portion may be joined by a ventilation duct such that air may migrate between the first portion and the second portion of the building”.
Nishimura, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the second fan is switchable. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize and arrive at the second fan being switchable, recognizing that more switchable fans is directly correlated to more control over the pressurization within a room, which is a desirable characteristic, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04 VI-B. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed a new and unexpected result for the claimed limitation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 2000337675 A, as cited in the Applicant’s 11/20/2023 IDS), in view of Sakamoto (JP2005114317A).
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura discloses the air conditioning system according to claim 6, further comprising:
a pressure sensor provided in the clean room (Par. 0017, “air pressure inside the clean room 11 detected by the pressure sensor 26”).
However, Nishimura does not disclose a controller capable of switching a room pressure of the clean room from one of a positive pressure and a negative pressure to the other.
Sakamoto discloses a pressure switching ventilation system (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Sakamoto further discloses it is known to have a controller (Par. 0048, control device 16) capable of switching a room pressure (Par. 0048, “a positive pressure operation mode that puts the room 1 to be ventilated under positive pressure and a negative pressure operation mode that puts the room 1 to be ventilated under negative pressure”) of a clean room (Par. 0058, “The room 1 to be ventilated is not limited to an operating room, but may be a hospital room, a production clean room, a research clean room, or the like.”) from one of a positive pressure and a negative pressure to the other (Par. 0048, “the supply air fan Fs and the exhaust fan Fe constitute a ventilation device for the room 1 to be ventilated (operating room), the negative/positive pressure changeover switch 15 and the control device 16 constitute switching means for switching the operation mode of the ventilation device between a positive pressure operation mode that puts the room 1 to be ventilated under positive pressure and a negative pressure operation mode that puts the room 1 to be ventilated under negative pressure” and Par. 0059, “rooms to be ventilated for various purposes can be switched between positive and negative pressure states”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Nishimura to have the capabilities of the same of Sakamoto in order to prevent germs and dust from entering or leaking from the room (As suggested by Par. 0044 of Sakamoto: “In other words, when it is necessary to prevent germs and dust from entering the room, the negative/positive pressure changeover switch 15 is operated to the positive pressure designation side to operate in positive pressure operation mode, thereby maintaining the air pressure in the operating room 1 higher by a predetermined difference than the air pressure in the corridor 7, and this pressure difference prevents germs and dust from entering the operating room 1, and when it is necessary to prevent pathogens from leaking outside the room, the negative/positive pressure changeover switch 15 is operated to the negative pressure designation side to operate in negative pressure operation mode, thereby maintaining the air pressure in the operating room 1 lower by a predetermined difference than the air pressure in the corridor 7, and this pressure difference prevents pathogens from leaking out of the operating room 1”) for increased effectiveness and adaptability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm ET.
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 on (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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762