DETAILED ACTION
Claim interpretation
The examiner considers the dryer to be positively recited. Further, in view of “flexibly foldable walls” & a plurality of reference(s) to “mobile”, inter alia, the examiner is taking applicant’s claim language to be directed to a mobile cleanroom.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “air guidance” of claim(s) 39 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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
Claims 27-48 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim(s) 27, line(s) 5 et seq., “at least one arrangement hanging” is substantially misleading. The examiner suggests --at least one hanging arrangement--. This is likely to be from translation issues. In line(s) 16, it appears “having” should be --hanging--.
With regard to claim(s) 37, line(s) 4, has a grammar error.
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.
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.
Claims 27-48 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.
With regard to claim(s) 27, line(s) 6, it is unclear which “shell wall” is being referred to. In line(s) 13, “made exclusively of only at least one material” is unclear and open to interpretation. In line(s) 18, “air dryer” lack(s) antecedent basis.
With regard to claim(s) 34, “air drying unit” lack(s) antecedent basis. Further, by applicant’s convention, it appears FVE should be LTE.
Claims 34-36 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. They depend from a canceled claim(s). 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.
Conclusion
Claim 49 is allowable.
Be advised. The applicant is not to take failure by the examiner to apply a prior art rejection to be an indication of allowable subject matter.
The examiner would additionally comment that it appears the applicant is applying the term “diffusion” to some of what are recited as contiguous surfaces; such as a door. The examiner was expecting concern, as in the example of a door, about the seal around the periphery of the door. In this case, the applicant may wish to consider that “convection” is a more appropriate term. Should any changes be made accordingly in this direction, the examiner requests a “no new matter” statement. Consider, for example, claim(s) 31.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel et al. (10,219,961) disclose(s) a mobile cleanroom with external ventilation means.
Li et al. (2022/0202637) disclose(s) intermediate space wall employment in a mobile cleanroom.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights