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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLaren et al., U.S. Patent 4,594,817.
Regarding claim 1, McLaren discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement: a container housing (62); a plurality of capsule bed units (10) that are provided in an internal space of the container housing; and an air circulation passage (space within 62 external to the bed units, see Fig. 8) configured to take in air from an outside of the container housing and exhaust the air that has passed through all the capsule bed units to the outside of the container housing (at least via doors, see Fig. 6, generally). The phrase “configured to take in air from an outside of the container housing and exhaust the air that has passed through all the capsule bed units to the outside of the container housing” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, McLaren discloses a mobile sleeping area wherein: the container housing includes a housing door (66) configured to open and close the internal space, and a partition wall (interior wall including 71 nearest to 64 as shown in Fig. 8) configured to partition the internal space into a first internal space (shown above the partition wall) and a second internal space (shown below the partition wall); the first internal space is defined between the housing door and the partition wall (see Fig. 8); an air intake hole (65) which is a front end of the air circulation passage and an air exhaust hole (68) which is a rear end of the air circulation passage (if the front/rear separation line is at the partition wall including 71 shown just above 68 in Fig. 8) are exposed to the first internal space (at least when all doors are open); the plurality of capsule bed units are provided in the second internal space (see Fig. 8, they are provided in both internal spaces); and the partition wall includes a first door (71) that connects the first internal space and the second internal space (see Fig. 8, generally). The phrases “configured to open and close the internal space,” and “configured to partition the internal space into a first internal space and a second internal space” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaren et al., U.S. Patent 4,594,817 in view of Epperson, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020.
Regarding claim 2, McLaren discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement but does not disclose a main exhaust duct constituting a part of the air circulation passage and configured to allow the air that has passed through all the capsule bed units to pass through the main exhaust duct. Epperson teaches main exhaust ducts (36) constituting a part of the air circulation passage (spaces connecting the bed units) and configured to allow the air that has passed through all the capsule bed units to pass through the main exhaust duct (see Figs. 5-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a connecting exhaust duct to keep the air clean and circulating within the housing.
Regarding claim 3, McLaren in view of Epperson, as modified, discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement but does not specifically disclose a ventilation device that constitutes a part of the air circulation passage and that is provided between the main exhaust duct and an air exhaust hole which is a rear end of the air circulation passage, wherein the main exhaust duct has a cross-sectional area that increases in a direction toward the ventilation device. Epperson teaches a ventilation device (filter, paragraph 46) as part of the air circulation passage between the main exhaust and an exhaust hole (at the destination end, paragraph 46, see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter to promote clean air circulation. The location may be at a rear end depending on the orientation of the container housing.
Regarding claim 4, McLaren in view of Epperson discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement but does not specifically disclose wherein the cross-sectional area of the main exhaust duct increases corresponding to the capsule bed units in the direction toward the ventilation device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the duct with a size according to exhaust needs, including having an increased size towards the ventilation device according to needs/requirements of the container housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 5, McLaren in view of Epperson, as modified, discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement further comprising: a sub exhaust duct that connects the capsule bed units and the main exhaust duct and that constitutes a part of the air circulation passage (see Fig. 5 of Epperson, duct portion which extends into a capsule).
Clam(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaren et al., U.S. Patent 4,594,817.
Regarding claim 7, McLaren discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement comprising: a ventilation device (other of 71) that constitutes a part of the air circulation passage and that is attached to the partition wall (via other wall members, see Fig. 8 generally), wherein the ventilation device is connected to the air intake hole and the air exhaust hole that are formed in the partition wall (all of the components of the structure are connected either directly or indirectly to the other structure components), but does not specify the ventilation device takes in air from the air intake hole and exhausts air through the air exhaust hole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, depending on the direction of wind/airflow in the environment, either one of the holes can be an air intake hole while the other hole is an air exhaust hole.
Regarding claim 8, McLaren discloses a mobile sleeping arrangement but does not specifically disclose wherein the container housing includes, on a surface on which the housing door is not present, a second door configured to open the second internal space to the outside. McLaren teaches that a similar portion of the building as shown in Fig. 8 may extend on the other side of centerline 63. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the other half of the building will have the same components, including an end door for providing additional building access/egress.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights