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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A Clean Air-Partition System comprising:
- a main frame including a upper frame and a lower frame;
- a control panel and display mounted on top of system in the main frame;
- a stand;
- plurality of wheels;
- a first high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter placed in the upper frame of the main frame and a second high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter placed in lower frame of the main frame;
- an Airflow Separation Module (ASM); and
- Smart Particle Sensor Actuator Set (SPSAS),
wherein the upper frame is either fixed in location above the lower frame or adjustable manually or automatically;
wherein the Airflow Separation Module (ASM) separates a clean airflow streams and an unclean airflow streams, direct the clean air towards a user and direct the unclean air downwards into the exit HEPA filter and bring in the clean air through the dedicated frame into the protected space, and
wherein the SPSAS senses and provides the biological marking of the particles in terms of their toxicity in different vertical panels to the electronic display placed in the control panel, actuates a drive box to move the upper frame to maintain the flow separation and suit the height of the system to the specific case and switch on/off the two HEPA filters in the upper frame and lower frame to maintain a volume flow rate and direction of flow of air through the HEPA filters. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite it is unclear whether the recitation of “lower frame” (in the limitation starting with “a first high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter”) refers to the “lower frame” (in the limitation (starting with “a main frame”).
Claim 1 is further indefinite because “Smart” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear how the upper frame can be “fixed in location” with there also being a drive box that is actuated “to move the upper frame.”
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 1 describes an apparatus because it is to a “system.” But the claim also includes method steps for using the apparatus with the verbs “separates,” (e.g., “separates a clean airflow streams”), “direct,” “bring,” “senses,” “provides,” “actuates,” and “switch on/off.” The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when a system is created that allows these actions to be performed (e.g., the system could separate a clean airflow streams), or whether infringement requires that the actions are actually performed. See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II (a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite). To overcome this rejection, the claim could be amended to specify that the system is “configured to” perform the various functions (instead of using language suggesting that the actions are actually performed).
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “a clean airflow streams” refers to a single clean airflow stream, or to multiple clean airflow streams. The same issue exists for “an unclean airflow streams.”
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear whether “the clean air” refers to the “clean airflow streams” or to a different element. The claim is also indefinite because it is unclear whether “the unclean air” refers to the “unclean airflow streams.”
Claim 1 is also indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the exit HEPA filter,”
“the dedicated frame”
“the protected space”
“the biological marking,”
“the electronic display”
“the flow separation” and
“the specific case”
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear which element is referenced by “different vertical panels.”
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether—“the two HEPA filters in the upper frame and lower frame”—means that the upper and lower frame each have two HEPA filters, or whether this limitation is referencing the first HEPA filter in the upper frame and the second HEPA filter in the lower frame.
Further clarification is required.
Claims 2–10 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
Also, claim 2 recites:
2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the two frames acts as inlet port or suction port for the unclean/infected air and the other act as outlet or blower for clean air. Emphasis added.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the two frames” refers to the “upper frame” and “lower frame” of claim 1.
Claim 2 is also indefinite because it is unclear if “the unclean/infected air” refers to the “unclean airflow streams” of claim 1.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because it is unclear if “clean air” refers to the “clean air” of claim 1.
To overcome these rejections, claim 2 could be amended to read:
2. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein one of the upper frame and the lower frame unclean airflow stream acts the clean airflow stream
Claim 3 recites:
3. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system can be manually and/or automatically adjusted and achieve separation of flow of clean air streams from the unclean air streams and maintain both the protected space and outside space clean. Emphasis added.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if “clean air streams” refers to the “clean airflow streams” of claim 1.
Claim 3 is also indefinite because “the…outside space” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because “clean” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Further clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites:
4. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is fixed or portable, employ to automatically or manually create and maintain a clean climate in environment and can be permanently fixed at the time of construction of the room or retrofitted into an existing environment. Emphasis added.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what is mean by “employ to automatically or manually created and maintain…”
Claim 4 is also indefinite because “clean” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 4 is further indefinite because “the room” lacks antecedent basis.
To overcome these rejections, claim 4 could be amended to read:
4. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is fixed or portable, wherein the system is capable of being employed manually create and maintain a an environment and can be permanently fixed at the time of construction of [[the]] a room or retrofitted into an existing environment.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is capable of directing virus-borne air away from the protected zones and filling the zone with non-toxic and healthy air. Emphasis added.
Claim 5 is indefinite because “the protected zones” and “the zone” lack antecedent basis.
Claim 5 is also indefinite because “non-toxic” and “healthy” are each relative terms that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Further clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites:
6. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the system is a designed structure to enclose the HEPA filters along with the implementation for flow separation, the facility to translate or rotate the structure on the ground, and necessary electrical connections for power input. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the HEPA filters” refers to the first HEPA filter and the second HEPA filter of claim 1.
Claim 6 is also indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the implementation”
“the facility”
“the structure”
“the ground”
Claim 6 is also indefinite because “necessary” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Further clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites:
7. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein an air-flow separation implementation in the system enables the flow in the targeted and limited region of space of clean air into two or more streams in the vertical plane. Emphasis added.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the flow”
“the targeted and limited region of space of clean air” and
“the vertical plane”
Further clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites:
8. The system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the said system maintains the region of space clean with a unidirectional flow of clean air so that the protected person is at no risk of inhaling the virus while interacting with a possibly infected visitor when the protected person is in verbal and gestural communication with the possibly infected visitor. Emphasis added.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims both an apparatus (as the claim is to a system) and method steps for using the apparatus (as the system “maintains” instead of being configured to maintain). See MPEP 2173.05(p), subsection II.
Claim 8 is also indefinite because the following limitations lack antecedent basis:
“the region of space” and
“the protected person”
Claim 8 is further indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “no risk” as a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there is usually at least some risk of inhaling a virus.
Claim 8 is also indefinite because—“verbal and gestural communication with the possibly infected visitor”—defines the claim by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined, as “when the protected person is in verbal and gestural communication with the possibly infected visitor” is variable. See MPEP 2173.05(b), subsection II (reference to an object that is variable may render a claim indefinite).
Further clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites in the preamble—“A Controlled Clean-air-flow Separation Infection-prevention System (CCSIS) comprising one or more Clean Air-Partition System as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Clean Air-Partition System comprising….”
Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if the CCSIS comprises multiple Clean Air-Partition Systems or whether it is limited to a single Clean Air-Partition System. This is because the claim initially says that the CCSIS can comprise multiple Clean Air-Partition Systems as it says that the CCSIS comprises “one or more Clean Air-Partition System.” But then the claim indicates that the CCSIS comprises a single Clean Air-Partition System by saying “the Clean Air-Partition system comprising.”
Claim 9 is also indefinite because the components of “the Clean Air-Partition system” are identical to those described in claim 1, and therefore it is unclear if the elements of the Clean Air-Partition system are intended to be the same as those of claim 1.
To overcome these rejections, claim 9 could be amended to read:
9. A Controlled Clean-air-flow Separation Infection-prevention System (CCSIS) comprising one or more Clean Air-Partition System as claimed in claim 1
.
Claim 10 recites:
10. A Controlled Clean-air-flow Isolation Infection-prevention System (CCIIS) comprising:
- a Clean Air-Partition System as claimed in claim 1;
-a transparent thick polymer sheet enclosure; and
-a metal frame. Emphasis added.
Claim 10 is indefinite because “thick” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). To overcome this rejection, claim 10 could be amended to read:
10. A Controlled Clean-air-flow Isolation Infection-prevention System (CCIIS) comprising:
- a Clean Air-Partition System as claimed in claim 1;
-a transparent
-a metal frame.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Imai et al., US 12,270,200 B2 (a partition having fans); Smith, US 11,852,375 B2 (ventilation partitions); Rozeboom et al., US 2021/0145171 A1 (furniture with air filtration); Suzumura et al., US 2021/0088238 A1 (dust removal device with adjustable angle); Escobedo, US 2019/0056129 A1 (portable room venting system); Sekiguchi et al., US 2016/0018117 A1 (air supply device with adjustable height); Fukiura et al., US 2013/0095743 A1 (panel-shaped air blowing device); Chiang et al., US 6,481,228 B1 (air conditioning module); Haslebacher, US 6,099,607 (adjustable air purification device); Spengler, US 5,688,297 (portable clean air assembly); Matsui, US 5,264,015 (screen with air cleaning function).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights