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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horak, US Pub. 2025/0061758.
Regarding claim 21, Horak discloses a control system for laboratory enclosure comprising: a laboratory safety enclosure 100 including a sash 108, window and/or door; and a user-identification system 200 operatively connected to the laboratory safety enclosure 100 such that operation thereof is a function of the user-identification system detecting a pre-authorized user; a software interface 208 for storing security credential which authorizes users access after comparison of the information provided by the remote computer (see Fig. 1-2; par. 0044-0055).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the user-identification system includes a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader operatively connected to the laboratory safety enclosure such that operation thereof is a function of the RFID reader interacting with one or more RFID tags (see par. 0057).
Regarding claim 3, including a locking mechanism coupled to the sash, window and/or door so as to inhibit access to an interior of the laboratory safety enclosure, wherein the user-identification system is operatively connected to the locking mechanism, with unlocking thereof being a function of the user-identification system detecting the pre-authorized user (see par. 0049+).
Regarding claim 4, including a display coupled to the sash, window and/or door, wherein the user-identification system is operatively connected to the display such that operation thereof is a function of the user-identification system detecting the pre-authorized user (the walls 104/106 include displays for the operation of the enclosure 100, par. 0045).
Regarding claim 6, including: a person-detecting device coupled to the laboratory safety enclosure; a memory; a processor operatively connected to the person-detecting device and memory, the processor functioning to restrict access to the laboratory safety enclosure assembly unless i) a person is detected via the person-detecting device; ii) the person is authorized and/or within a database in said memory; and iii) the person is certified to use the laboratory safety enclosure assembly (the remote identification system or the remote computer 210 includes memories and means for detecting authorized users, including RFID authentication means, par. 0057+).
Regarding claim 7, a kit comprising one or more of: a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader operatively connectable to the laboratory safety enclosure such that operation thereof is a function of the RFID reader interacting with one or more RFID tags; a locking mechanism operatively connectable to the sash, window and/or door so as to inhibit access to an interior of the laboratory safety enclosure, wherein the user-identification system is operatively connected to the locking mechanism, with unlocking thereof being a function of the user-identification system detecting the pre-authorized user; or a display operatively connectable to the sash, window and/or door, wherein the user-identification system is operatively connected to the display such that operation thereof is a function of the user-identification system detecting the pre-authorized user (see the rejection of claims 1-3 above).
Regarding claim 8, a laboratory safety enclosure having an interior and including a sash, window and/or door; and a display coupled to the sash, window and/or door; and a processor and/or user identification system which requires viewing and/or completion of a safety training video or course via the display, to enable access to the interior of the laboratory safety enclosure (the walls 104/106 include displays for the operation of the enclosure 100, they are can provide video displays, par. 0045).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the processor and/or user-identification system additionally requires satisfactory completion of a safety test via the display, so as to enable access to the interior of the laboratory safety enclosure (the safety test can include having the user entering his credentials, par. 0049+).
Regarding claim 10, a laboratory safety enclosure including a sash, window and/or door; and a display coupled to the sash, window and/or door, the display being selectively or at least partially transparent, and the display comprising a graphical user interface with a medium via which notes indicia may be created (in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, the walls 104/106 include displays for the operation of the enclosure 100, par. 0045).
Regarding claim 13, a laboratory safety enclosure having an interior and including a sash, window and/or door; a position-sensing device via which positioning of the sash, window and/or door is measured and one or more signals based thereon are emitted; a display via which access to the interior of the laboratory safety enclosure is enabled by logging therein; and a processor operatively connected to the position-sensing device and the display, with the processor logging each change in positioning of the sash, window and/or door and the processor logging time-in and time-out information and/or the time at which a logging-in event occurs and the time at which a logging-off event occurs (in addition to the rejection of claims 1-3 above, the prior art teaches sensor for detecting the presence of users and provides means for logging into the system, par. 0073).
Regarding claim 14, wherein features of the assembly are accessible on the display upon logging-in with user information, and wherein the processor correlates data so logged with the user information so as to determine user-specific safety information, a user-specific safety score, user-specific efficiency information and/or a user-specific efficiency score (the logging information is used to establish if a user is authorized, par. 0073).
Regarding claim 15, a kit comprising: said position-sensing device connectable to the laboratory safety enclosure so as to measure positioning of the sash, window and/or door in real-time and emit one or more signals based thereon are emitted; said display connectable to the laboratory safety enclosure, the display being operatively connectable to a servomotor of the sash, window and/or door to enable access to the interior of the laboratory safety enclosure, and/or the display being operatively connectable to a locking mechanism of the sash, window and/or door to enable access to the interior of the laboratory safety enclosure; and said processor operatively connected to the position-sensing device and the display, with the processor logging each change in positioning of the sash, window and/or door and the processor logging time-in and time-out information and/or the time at which a logging-in event occurs and the time at which a logging-off event occurs (in addition to the rejection of claim 13 above, the prior art teaches sensor for detecting the presence of users, motorized means for opening the sash/door, and provides means for logging into the system, par. 0073).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the processor requires satisfactory completion of the safety test via the display, so as to enable access to the interior of the laboratory safety enclosure (the API controls by the processor/controller a desktop, tablet, or smartphone computer to authenticate users before allow access to the interior, par. 0044).
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.
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horak in view of Mairesse et al, KR 20210069032. The teachings of Horak have been discussed above.
Horak fails to disclose, wherein the user-identification system comprises a biometric device comprising a fingerprint sensor, an iris sensor, and/or a face sensor, and/or wherein the user-identification system comprises a camera with artificial intelligence and/or facial recognition technology/software.
Mairesse et al disclose biomolecule production system and methods comprising: access to the bioreactor described herein may be through a lid or door; the access mechanism to the bioreactor is a lock and key mechanism, a pass code punch pad, a card swipe, a transponder reader ( transponder readers), fingerprint scanners, retina scanners, sensors, automatic identification and data collection methods such as radio frequency identification (RFID), biometric devices (eg, iris or facial recognition systems), magnetic stripes, optics, including text recognition (OCR), smart cards, voice recognition, or other access mechanisms.
In view of the teachings of Mairesse et al, it would have been obvious to modified the teachings of Horak to include a biometric identification system for identifying authorized users. Such modification would enhance the identification system and eliminate unauthorized individuals accessing the enclosure. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harak. The teachings of Harak have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to disclose a digital whiteboard. However, using digital whiteboard is for meeting customer requirements in order to enhance interactivity for integrating digital content. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by Horak.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to disclose a transparent display and position the display to conceal the interior of the enclosure. However, the type of display and the position thereof are matters of choices for meeting specific customer requirements. Using transparent display would offer seamless integration of physical environments, proving interactivity with greater visibility. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claims 16-20, Harak fails to disclose all the method steps, including determining if a user is authorized, opening the sash or door, setting up alarms, etc. However, since the structural limitations are as recited above, the metho steps are obtained and therefore, obvious. For instance, instructing the user to enter his/her credentials, comparing the user credential for allowing access, etc., such steps are common and necessary from establishing authorized users. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the Horak.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See examiner remarks.
Remarks:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art ( Horax US Pub. 2025/0061758) fails to disclose a processor requiring three safety criteria/conditions (detection/authorization/certification), the examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to compare the user credential, the user information and/or the user must be detected, compared, before allow access to the user (see par. 0049). These steps meet the three criteria requirement. In response to the argument regarding claim 8, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor and/or user identification system which requires viewing and/or completion of a safety training video. When OR is used in claim, the processor is not required to perform all the steps, the step of the completion of the training is not a requirement. Furthermore, the system has displays in the wall and employs user API devices, including tablets, smartphone computers which includes displays capable of providing video displays. Regarding claim 13, the controller can record each event (i.e.) opening/closing of the sash or door of the enclosure. The applicant argument is not persuasive. Refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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 G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights