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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, military-grade self-defense systems, as well as zero-visibility systems, an all-weather landing system, and an X-Sight Helmet Display system of claim 5,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8-18 in the preamble recite “A medical module as claimed in claim…” Which should read “the medical module as claimed in claim…”
Claim 14 recites “A medical module is claimed”, which should read “A medical module as claimed.”
Claim 15-18 recite “a medical module has claimed”, which should read “as claimed”.
Claim 7, part (e), missing comma/punctuation.
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 1-18 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. The claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 rejected as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Claim 1 recites “…to become part of a larger modular facility with specific purposes, to allows for customization of the facility depending on the medical or other needs.” The terms “specific purposes” and “other needs” are not defined by the claim. It is not clear what type of need is meant by “specific purpose” or “other needs”.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “tailored to their purpose” and is similarly rejected as above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “other establishments”, and is similarly rejected as above.
Claims 1, 2, 4 recite “when necessary can be…”. Not clear if the limitations which follows “when necessary” or “can be” are required part of the limitations or optional.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the aerospace object", “the facility”, There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “where necessary”, and is similarly rejected as above.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "particularly"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites “the aircraft object is equipped with military-grade self-defense systems, as well as zero-visibility systems, an all-weather landing system, and an X-Sight Helmet Display system”. Not clear from the claims or the specification what is military grade self-defense, or a X-Sight Helmet Display system. Further these are not seen in the drawings.
Claim 6 recites “are designed with a proper roof”. Not clear from the claims or the specification what is s “proper roof”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the use". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "said modules". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Missing consistent terminology.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the end". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a said plurality of modules”. Claim 17 depends upon claims 16, 15 and finally independent claim 7. These claims do not recite a plurality of modules. The limitation lacks antecedent basis.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Applicant is suggested to further review claims for further instances of indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga et al (US 20230381038) in view of Pantoine et al (US 20150225973).
In regards to claim 1, Koga discloses a mobile transportation system, having a plurality of modules (seen in Fig. 1 refs. Ux on ref. T),
Koga does not expressly disclose:
including a self-sufficient hospital facility, small-scale medical device manufacturing facility, vaccine production facility, pharmaceutical production facility, sterilization facility, and food production facility, as well as an accommodation facility;
However, Pantoine teaches modules within a transportation system which are used for surgery, diagnostic and treatment of patients ([0052] “the enclosure system 110 is utilized to perform general surgery and/or specific surgery (e.g., eye surgery, plastic surgery, etc.) and/or diagnostic procedures (e.g., blood analysis, scans such as X-ray scans, etc.) therein while inside the aircraft”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Koga with Pantoine by providing the means that the modules include a self-sufficient hospital facility, small-scale medical device manufacturing facility, vaccine production facility, pharmaceutical production facility, sterilization facility, and food production facility, as well as an accommodation facility in order to allow for better treatment using a single transportation system.
Koga as combined further discloses:
wherein each of said plurality of modules, when necessary can be unloaded from the aerospace object (Koga [0016] disclose transportation system is aircraft) and connected to other modules to become part of a larger modular facility with specific purposes (as seen in Fig. 1 the modules are modular containers and can be unloaded), to allows for customization of the facility depending on the medical or other needs.
In regards to claim 2, Koga as combined discloses the mobile transportation system as claimed in claim 1 wherein each of said plurality of modules can be transported to remote areas or areas affected by natural disasters or military conflicts to provide immediate medical care on board of the aerospace object (Koga [0016] “transports the loaded unit to people or regions that cannot receive appropriate medical services when they need them due to various circumstances”) and/or become part of other necessary facilities.
In regards to claim 3, Koga a s combined discloses the mobile transportation system as claimed in claim 2 wherein said plurality of modules build various establishments, including hospitals and other facilities for providing life support and services in remote or disaster-stricken areas (Koga [0016]); said plurality of modules being easily transportable and interconnectable to form various facilities tailored to their purpose (Koga as seen in Fig. 1 the modules are transportable and easily connectable for given purposes).
In regards to claim 4, Koga as combined discloses the mobile transportation system as claimed in claim 3 wherein said plurality of modules can be used to construct surgical, medical imaging and diagnostic modalities equipped hospital systems, humanitarian missions, and other establishments that provide support to remote areas or areas affected by natural disasters or military conflicts (the modules of Koga can be used to construct medical modules, [0016], [0033] “determination function 122 determines whether or not a combination of the medical treatment units Ux loaded on the trailer truck T is a combination of units suitable for target patients and target regions to which the units are to be transported”.
Claim 7-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pantoine et al (US 20150225973) in view of Grether et al (US 20050211840).
In regards to claim 7, Patoine discloses a medical module for an aerospace vehicle comprising:
a) a top surface (top seen in Fig. 2B for module ref. 110) spaced from a bottom surface (bottom surface of ref. 110 Fig. 2B),
b) first and second spaced ends (Fig. 2B ref. 112, [0056] “module 112, which can be considered identical to module 114 with respect to its walls except for the fact that it includes a wall on the opposite side from which it connects to module 112”);
c) a first side surface spaced from a second side surface, wherein the second side surface is different from said first side surface (as suggested in Fig. 2B and 3);
while Pantoine discloses a walkway, Fig. 2A at ref. 126, Pantoine does not expressly disclose: d) wherein said bottom surface extends beyond said first side surface to present a walking surface; and
Grether teaches a bottom surface of an aircraft cargo pallet onto which modules/containers secured and extends beyond a side surface/wall (Fig. 5 ref. 204 extends beyond side of ref. 202).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Pantoine with Grether by providing said bottom surface extends beyond said first side surface to present a walking surface in order to allow personal to walk outside of the modules to not interfere with operations occurring within the modules.
Pantoine as combined further discloses:
e) wherein said top bottom and first and second side surfaces are configured to maximize the use of an interior of said aerospace vehicle (as suggested in at least Fig. 2 and 3 of Pantoine).
In regards to claim 8, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module as claimed in claim 7 wherein said aerospace vehicle comprises an airplane extending longitudinally to present a shell and deck (as seen in Fig. 1 of Pantoine), and a plurality of said modules disposed longitudinally end to end within said shell (as seen in Fig. 1 of Pantoine); wherein said walking surface of each said plurality of modules are aligned and define a corridor between said walking surface, said first side surface and a portion of said shell (Pantoine, as suggested in at least Fig. 2B).
In regards to claim 9, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module as claimed in claim 8 but does not expressly disclose: wherein said second surface is curved to conform to the shell. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to make the second surface is curved to conform to the shell in order to occupy the curved overhead surface of the cabin interior to grant more vertical space for the modules. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regards to claim 10, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module as claimed in claim 9 wherein a number of said plurality of said modules are selective moveable from said aerospace vehicle to be placed end to end on an exterior surface (as seen at least in Fig. 3, the modules are placed end to end with access through the modules, and capable of placed on an exterior surface).
In regards to claim 11, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module as claimed in claim 10 wherein said plurality of modules are selected from the group of blood test, liver function test, thyroid function test, cholesterol screening test, urine test, imaging test, electrocardiogram, electroencephalogram, biopsy, colonoscopy, pap smear mammogram, pulmonary function test, endoscope, physical examination medical history, observation, laboratory test, genetic testing, medication treatment , surgery, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, hormone therapy, stem cell transplant, physical therapy, psychotherapy and alternative medicine therapy modules (Pantoine [0052] “the enclosure system 110 is utilized to perform general surgery and/or specific surgery (e.g., eye surgery, plastic surgery, etc.) and/or diagnostic procedures (e.g., blood analysis, scans such as X-ray scans, etc.)”).
In regards to claim 12, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module as claimed in claim 11 wherein said first surface of each said plurality of modules is vertical and presents an access door into said module (Pantoine as seen in Fig. 4 ref. 430).
In regards to claim 13, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module as claimed in claim 12 wherein each said module of said plurality of modules present first and second end doors that longitudinally align with one another (Pantoine [0058] discloses doors for modules and connection).
In regards to claim 14, Pantoine as combined disloses a medical module is claimed in claim 13 wherein said module defines medical facilities (Pantoine [0052] discloses surgery within modules).
In regards to claim 15, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module has claimed in claim 7 wherein said module presents an access door in said first side surface to present an opening into said module from said walking surface (Pantoine Fig. 4 ref. 430).
In regards to claim 16, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module has claimed in claim 15 wherein in each said module presents a door on the end to communicate with each said module (Pantoine Fig. 4 ref. 430).
In regards to claim 17, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module has claimed in claim 16 wherein a said plurality of modules are selectively removable for end to end connection to each other on the exterior surface (Pantoine Fig. 1, the containers are modular and may be selectively removed).
In regards to claim 18, Pantoine as combined discloses a medical module has claimed in claim 17 defining a movable hospital (Pantoine [0052] discloses surgery within modules, accordingly providing hospital services).
Claim 5, 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koga, Pantoine as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baudou (US 20100265169).
In regards to claim 5, Koga as combined discloses the mobile transportation system as claimed in claim 1 comprising aircrafts (koga [0016] discloses aircraft), long-range (over 500 km) airships, drones, spacecraft, trains, ocean floor stabilized jack ships, eVTOL and VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing).
Koga as combined does not expressly disclose: further to ensure safety, particularly when operating in or near military conflicts, the aircraft object is equipped with military-grade self-defense systems, as well as zero-visibility systems, an all-weather landing system, and an X-Sight Helmet Display system.
Baudou teaches a pilot helmet (as seen in Fig. 1), the helmet itself may be considered military grade self defense for the pilot to impede shrapnel, Baudou further teaches the helmet displays vital information for the pilot to assist in determine to land in various types of weather ([0004] “The visibility of the information presented the helmet display in fine weather requires an image of high brightness”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Koga with Koga as combined with Baudou by providing the means the aircraft object is equipped with military-grade self-defense systems, as well as zero-visibility systems, an all-weather landing system, and a Helmet Display system in order to assist pilot to operate in adverse terrain.
In regards to claim 6, Koga as combined discloses the mobile transportation system as claimed in claim 5 wherein said modules:
a) are designed to provide sufficient space for the equipment and staff to operate properly (Fig. 1 disclose medical treatment unit, comprising space for personal, [0035]), as well as to provide shielding where necessary (Fig. 1 ref. 200 scanner, which comprises shielding, walls of modules);
b) sized to fit optimally and conform with all available volume by precision spatial conforming to all usable surfaces within the aerospace unit of the aerospace object and are properly attached and securely locked and anchored to its structure for safe transportation and deployment when needed, and recertification upon deployment (Koga Fig. 1 suggests modules secured to transportation);
c) are designed with a proper roof to protect the equipment from the elements (Fig. 1 as suggested by modules Ux);
Koga does not expressly disclose: d) equipped with power, water, and NBC air connectivity to allow for seamless integration with other modules; and e) designed with an isolated and closed connection of the flooring with other modules to prevent contamination and ensure the safety of patients and staff.
Pantoine teaches connectivity between modules ([0056]) thus air connectivity is within those connected modules, power and patient diagnostic and treatment services ([0052] therefore water available, closed flooring (as seen in Fig. 2A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Koga with Koga as combined with Pantoine by providing the means for modules to be equipped with power, water, and NBC air connectivity to allow for seamless integration with other modules; and e) designed with an isolated and closed connection of the flooring with other modules to provide a stable surface on to which equipment may be mounted and for patient comfort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display modules for use in air transportational or ground facilities for medical uses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights