DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges Claims 1, 16 and 30 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection [see below].
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.
Claims 16, 18-20, 22-23, 26-29, 46 and 49 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.
In Claim 16, on Line 1 it recites “a stationary building” but then Line 2 recites “within a building that is stationary”. The Examiner finds the second recitation on Line 2 to be redundant.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11-16, 18-20, 23, 27-29, 45-46 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 4,449,746 to Clark in view of US Patent # 7,347,472 to Pellegrin in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0085609 to Barker in further view of US Patent # 6,155,260 to Lavin et al.
Regarding claim 1, Clark teaches in Figures 2 and 4, a stationary (Column 4, Lines 34-37) ambulatory (Column 4, Lines 63-64) surgical [procedure (Column 5, Line 13)] center [facility (Column 1, Lines 10-11)], comprising: a hybrid operating room (16) [procedure room (Column 2, Line 46)] within a building (4) [main housing section (Column 2, Line 42)] that is stationary (Column 4, Lines 34-37) and fixed [carried by supports (Column 4, Line 44)], comprising: a device (24) [CT-scanner (Column 2, Lines 48-49)] fixed [mounted (Column 2, Lines 65-67)] within the hybrid operating room (16), an operating table (35) (Column 3, Lines 10-11), a power supply [X-Ray Power Supply] within an equipment room (22) [equipment area (Column 2, Line 47)], the power supply configured to provide power to the device, and radiation shielding (Column 2, Line 49) comprising at least one lead-shielded wall (28) (Column 2, Lines 53-54) which is shielded to a height [of the semi-trailer] configured to shield an exterior of the hybrid operating room [its walls, doors and ceiling (Column 2, Lines 52-55)] from radiation output from the device (Column 2, Lines 50-52), whereby the shield provides adequate protection (Column 2, Lines 51-52) to humans [patients (Column 1, Lines 53-54)] who are exterior to the hybrid operating room (16). Clark does not teach one or more conduits from the equipment room to the device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that building codes require conduit when wiring is exposed to physical damage or wet/outdoor locations and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Clark does not teach the height of the radiation shielding is less than eight feet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a height for the radiation shielding to be less than eight feet 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 or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to make the radiation shielding high enough to adequately shield people in the facility but not too high that wastes material. Clark does not teach the device is a fluoroscopy device. However, Pellegrin teaches a mobile medical training system (Column 3, Lines 14-15) that includes a laboratory section equipped with a number of radiographic machines including a fluoroscopy device (Column 5, Lines 58-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mobile tomography unit of Clark with the mobile medical training enclosure of Pellegrin and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches fluoroscopy devices allow for view of anatomic material and/or the placement of instruments and devices (Column 5, Lines 62-64). Neither Clark nor Pellegrin teach an air change system configured to provide at least six air changes per hour to the hybrid operating room. However, Barker teaches that medical facilities follow guidelines set out by organizations such as ASHRAE to provide the best possible environment for patients while maximizing the ability to provide medical care and operate in an efficient manner (Paragraph 0003) and this sets forth a protective environment for patients with twelve air changes per hour with positive pressure (Paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Baker and have a reasonable expectation of success because Baker teaches changing the air at least six times per hour with a positive air change system in order to increase patient comfort (Paragraph 0161). Clark, Pellegrin and Baker do not teach a medical gas room. However, Lavin teaches in Figure 5, a medical gas room (206) [central supply (Column 8, Line 43)] configured to provide a source of medical gasses [fluid service (Column 7, Line 22)] including anesthetic gasses (Column 7, Line 67) and oxygen (Column 7, Line 65) to treatment rooms (Column 8, Lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Lavin and have a reasonable expectation of success because Laving teaches having a medical gas room to supply anesthetic gases and oxygen to the hybrid operating room in order to be able to perform operations that require these utilities.
Regarding claim 3, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the operating table (35) is disposed in a location substantially central to an interior of the hybrid operating room (16).
Regarding claim 4, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the device (24) is fixed [mounted (Column 2, Lines 65-67)] at a location substantially central [there is space around the entire device] to an interior of the hybrid operating room (16).
Regarding claim 5, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Pellegrin teaches in Figure 2, the fluoroscopy device (220) comprises a c-arm device (Column 5, Line 65) fixed to a ceiling of the hybrid operating room (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches the arm allows for variable positioning of the equipment (Column 6, Lines 49-50).
Regarding claim 8, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Lavin teaches in Figure 5, the medical gas room (206) is further configured to provide a suction source (Column 2, Line 54) to the hybrid operating room (Column 8, Lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because suction is one of the necessary medical utilities to perform medical and surgical procedures (Column 4, Lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 11, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center but they are silent about the surgical center not being greater than 20,000 square feet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not have the surgical center exceed 20,000 square feet 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 or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, looking at Clark, the apparatus is a semi-trailer and it would seem that it would be much less than 20,000 square feet, more like 400-500 square feet.
Regarding claim 12, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Clark teaches the facility is a mobile unit that provides mobile medical service (Column 1, Lines 20-24) thus being not adjacent to or within a hospital.
Regarding claim 13, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center but they are silent about the stationary ambulatory surgical center conforming with IBC Group B classification standards. However, the Group B standard is specifically for ambulatory care facilities, as well as many other types of facilities like banks, shops and laboratories [see the International Building Code]. Since the combination of references if for an ambulatory surgical center, it would need to meet this building code to operate.
Regarding claim 14, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Clark is silent about inpatient rooms, thus is absent for a stay of a patient for at least twenty-four hours.
Regarding claim 15, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Pellegrin teaches the laboratory section comprises a plurality of hybrid operating rooms [training stations (Column 5, Lines 10-11)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches the plurality of hybrid operating rooms allow for multiple procedures (Column 5, Lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 45, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the hybrid operating room further comprises a monolithic floor and a monolithic ceiling [as seen].
Regarding claim 48, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center. Furthermore, Clark teaches an emergency power source [generator (Column 3, Line 29)] configured to provide power to the hybrid operating room (Column 3, Lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 16, Clark teaches in Figures 2 and 4, a stationary (Column 4, Lines 34-37) building (4) [main housing section (Column 2, Line 42)], comprising: a hybrid operating room (16) [procedure room (Column 2, Line 46)] within a building (4) [main housing section (Column 2, Line 42)] that is stationary (Column 4, Lines 34-37) and fixed [carried by supports (Column 4, Line 44)], comprising: a device (24) [CT-scanner (Column 2, Lines 48-49)] fixed [mounted (Column 2, Lines 65-67)] within the hybrid operating room (16), an operating table (35) (Column 3, Lines 10-11), a power supply [X-Ray Power Supply] within an equipment room (22) [equipment area (Column 2, Line 47)], the power supply configured to provide power to the device, and radiation shielding (Column 2, Line 49) comprising at least one lead-shielded wall (28) (Column 2, Lines 53-54) which is shielded to a height [of the semi-trailer] configured to shield an exterior of the hybrid operating room [its walls, doors and ceiling (Column 2, Lines 52-55)] from radiation output from the device (Column 2, Lines 50-52), whereby the shield provides adequate protection (Column 2, Lines 51-52) to humans [patients (Column 1, Lines 53-54)] who are exterior to the hybrid operating room (16); wherein the medical office comprises a stationary and fixed single-story building structure (4) [see Figure 1] Clark does not teach one or more conduits from the equipment room to the device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that building codes require conduit when wiring is exposed to physical damage or wet/outdoor locations and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Clark does not teach the height of the radiation shielding is less than eight feet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a height for the radiation shielding to be less than eight feet 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 or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to make the radiation shielding high enough to adequately shield people in the facility but not too high that wastes material. Clark does not teach the device is a fluoroscopy device. However, Pellegrin teaches a mobile medical training system (Column 3, Lines 14-15) that includes a laboratory section equipped with a number of radiographic machines including a fluoroscopy device (Column 5, Lines 58-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mobile tomography unit of Clark with the mobile medical training enclosure of Pellegrin and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches fluoroscopy devices allow for view of anatomic material and/or the placement of instruments and devices (Column 5, Lines 62-64). Neither Clark nor Pellegrin teach an air change system configured to provide at least six air changes per hour to the hybrid operating room. However, Barker teaches that medical facilities follow guidelines set out by organizations such as ASHRAE to provide the best possible environment for patients while maximizing the ability to provide medical care and operate in an efficient manner (Paragraph 0003) and this sets forth a protective environment for patients with twelve air changes per hour with positive pressure (Paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Baker and have a reasonable expectation of success because Baker teaches changing the air at least six times per hour with a positive air change system in order to increase patient comfort (Paragraph 0161). Clark, Pellegrin and Baker do not teach a medical gas room. However, Lavin teaches in Figure 5, a medical gas room (206) [central supply (Column 8, Line 43)] configured to provide a source of medical gasses [fluid service (Column 7, Line 22)] including anesthetic gasses (Column 7, Line 67) and oxygen (Column 7, Line 65) to treatment rooms (Column 8, Lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Lavin and have a reasonable expectation of success because Laving teaches having a medical gas room to supply anesthetic gases and oxygen to the hybrid operating room in order to be able to perform operations that require these utilities. Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin are silent about the building conforming with IBC Group B classification standards. However, the Group B standard is specifically for business like ambulatory care facilities, outpatient clinics and laboratories, as well as many other types of facilities like banks and shops [see the International Building Code]. Since the combination of references if for a business, it would need to meet this building code to operate.
Regarding claim 18, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the operating table (35) is disposed in a location substantially central to an interior of the hybrid operating room (16).
Regarding claim 19, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the device (24) is fixed [mounted (Column 2, Lines 65-67)] at a location substantially central [there is space around the entire device] to an interior of the hybrid operating room (16).
Regarding claim 20, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Pellegrin teaches in Figure 2, the fluoroscopy device (220) comprises a c-arm device (Column 5, Line 65) fixed to a ceiling of the hybrid operating room (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches the arm allows for variable positioning of the equipment (Column 6, Lines 49-50).
Regarding claim 23, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Lavin teaches in Figure 5, the medical gas room (206) is further configured to provide a suction source (Column 2, Line 54) to the hybrid operating room (Column 8, Lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because suction is one of the necessary medical utilities to perform medical and surgical procedures (Column 4, Lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 27, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Clark teaches the facility is a mobile unit that provides mobile medical service (Column 1, Lines 20-24) thus being not adjacent to or within a hospital.
Regarding claim 28, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Clark is silent about inpatient rooms, thus is absent for a stay of a patient for at least twenty-four hours.
Regarding claim 29, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Pellegrin teaches the laboratory section comprises a plurality of hybrid operating rooms [training stations (Column 5, Lines 10-11)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches the plurality of hybrid operating rooms allow for multiple procedures (Column 5, Lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 46, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the hybrid operating room further comprises a monolithic floor and a monolithic ceiling [as seen].
Regarding claim 49, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building. Furthermore, Clark teaches an emergency power source [generator (Column 3, Line 29)] configured to provide power to the hybrid operating room (Column 3, Lines 30-32).
Claims 7 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 4,449,746 to Clark in view of US Patent # 7,347,472 to Pellegrin in further view of US Patent # 7,530,616 to Pomper.
Regarding claim 7, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary ambulatory surgical center but they do not teach a gamma knife. However, Pomper teaches using a gamma knife radiation treatment (Columns 5-6, Lines 67-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pomper teaches providing radiation sources based upon the treatment needed for the patients (Columns 5-6, Lines 64-14).
Regarding claim 22, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building but they do not teach a gamma knife. However, Pomper teaches using a gamma knife radiation treatment (Columns 5-6, Lines 67-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pomper teaches providing radiation sources based upon the treatment needed for the patients (Columns 5-6, Lines 64-14).
Claims 26, 30, 32-34, 37, 40-44, 47 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 4,449,746 to Clark in view of US Patent # 7,347,472 to Pellegrin in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0085609 to Barker in further view of US Patent # 6,155,260 to Lavin et al in further view of US Patent # 6,675,540 to Rokes.
Regarding claim 26, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary building but do not teach it comprises a wooden frame building. However, Rokes teaches that portable buildings are conventionally constructed with wooden frame construction (Column 1, Lines 13-15). Furthermore, International Building Code Group B classification standards covers office buildings as well as ambulatory care facilities [see the International Building Code]. Thus, for the Prior Art facility to function as a building with an operating room, it must meet the building codes.
Regarding claim 30, Clark teaches in Figures 2 and 4, a stationary (Column 4, Lines 34-37) medical office [medical facility (Column 1, Lines 10-11)], comprising: a hybrid operating room (16) [procedure room (Column 2, Line 46)] within a building (4) [main housing section (Column 2, Line 42)] that is stationary (Column 4, Lines 34-37) and fixed [carried by supports (Column 4, Line 44)], comprising: a device (24) [CT-scanner (Column 2, Lines 48-49)] fixed [mounted (Column 2, Lines 65-67)] within the hybrid operating room (16), an operating table (35) (Column 3, Lines 10-11), a power supply [X-Ray Power Supply] within an equipment room (22) [equipment area (Column 2, Line 47)], the power supply configured to provide power to the device, and radiation shielding (Column 2, Line 49) comprising at least one lead-shielded wall (28) (Column 2, Lines 53-54) which is shielded to a height [of the semi-trailer] configured to shield an exterior of the hybrid operating room [its walls, doors and ceiling (Column 2, Lines 52-55)] from radiation output from the device (Column 2, Lines 50-52), whereby the shield provides adequate protection (Column 2, Lines 51-52) to humans [patients (Column 1, Lines 53-54)] who are exterior to the hybrid operating room (16); wherein the medical office comprises a stationary and fixed single-story building structure (4) [see Figure 1] Clark does not teach one or more conduits from the equipment room to the device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that building codes require conduit when wiring is exposed to physical damage or wet/outdoor locations and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Clark does not teach the height of the radiation shielding is less than eight feet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a height for the radiation shielding to be less than eight feet 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 or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to make the radiation shielding high enough to adequately shield people in the facility but not too high that wastes material. Clark does not teach the device is a fluoroscopy device. However, Pellegrin teaches a mobile medical training system (Column 3, Lines 14-15) that includes a laboratory section equipped with a number of radiographic machines including a fluoroscopy device (Column 5, Lines 58-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mobile tomography unit of Clark with the mobile medical training enclosure of Pellegrin and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches fluoroscopy devices allow for view of anatomic material and/or the placement of instruments and devices (Column 5, Lines 62-64). Neither Clark nor Pellegrin teach an air change system configured to provide at least six air changes per hour to the hybrid operating room. However, Barker teaches that medical facilities follow guidelines set out by organizations such as ASHRAE to provide the best possible environment for patients while maximizing the ability to provide medical care and operate in an efficient manner (Paragraph 0003) and this sets forth a protective environment for patients with twelve air changes per hour with positive pressure (Paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Baker and have a reasonable expectation of success because Baker teaches changing the air at least six times per hour with a positive air change system in order to increase patient comfort (Paragraph 0161). Clark, Pellegrin and Baker do not teach a medical gas room. However, Lavin teaches in Figure 5, a medical gas room (206) [central supply (Column 8, Line 43)] configured to provide a source of medical gasses [fluid service (Column 7, Line 22)] including anesthetic gasses (Column 7, Line 67) and oxygen (Column 7, Line 65) to treatment rooms (Column 8, Lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Lavin and have a reasonable expectation of success because Laving teaches having a medical gas room to supply anesthetic gases and oxygen to the hybrid operating room in order to be able to perform operations that require these utilities. Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin do not teach the medical office comprises a wooden frame building structure. However, Rokes teaches that portable buildings are conventionally constructed with wooden frame construction (Column 1, Lines 13-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Prior Art with Rokes and have a reasonable expectation of success because Rokes shows that a wooden frame building structure is old and well known and MPE 2143 states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, International Building Code Group B classification standards covers office buildings as well as ambulatory care facilities [see the International Building Code]. Thus for the Prior Art facility to function as a building with an operating room, it must meet the building codes.
Regarding claim 32, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the operating table (35) is disposed in a location substantially central to an interior of the hybrid operating room (16).
Regarding claim 33, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the device (24) is fixed [mounted (Column 2, Lines 65-67)] at a location substantially central [there is space around the entire device] to an interior of the hybrid operating room (16).
Regarding claim 34, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Pellegrin teaches in Figure 2, the fluoroscopy device (220) comprises a c-arm device (Column 5, Line 65) fixed to a ceiling of the hybrid operating room (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches the arm allows for variable positioning of the equipment (Column 6, Lines 49-50).
Regarding claim 37, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Lavin teaches in Figure 5, the medical gas room (206) is further configured to provide a suction source (Column 2, Line 54) to the hybrid operating room (Column 8, Lines 45-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because suction is one of the necessary medical utilities to perform medical and surgical procedures (Column 4, Lines 15-18).
Regarding claim 40, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office but they are silent about the surgical center not being greater than 20,000 square feet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not have the surgical center exceed 20,000 square feet 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 or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, looking at Clark, the apparatus is a semi-trailer and it would seem that it would be much less than 20,000 square feet, more like 400-500 square feet.
Regarding claim 41, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Clark teaches the facility is a mobile unit that provides mobile medical service (Column 1, Lines 20-24) thus being not adjacent to or within a hospital.
Regarding claim 42, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office but they are silent about the stationary ambulatory surgical center conforming with IBC Group B classification standards. However, the Group B standard is specifically for ambulatory care facilities, as well as many other types of facilities like banks, shops and laboratories [see the International Building Code]. Since the combination of references if for an ambulatory surgical center, it would need to meet this building code to operate.
Regarding claim 43, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Clark is silent about inpatient rooms, thus is absent for a stay of a patient for at least twenty-four hours.
Regarding claim 44, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Pellegrin teaches the laboratory section comprises a plurality of hybrid operating rooms [training stations (Column 5, Lines 10-11)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pellegrin teaches the plurality of hybrid operating rooms allow for multiple procedures (Column 5, Lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 47, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Clark teaches in Figure 4, the hybrid operating room further comprises a monolithic floor and a monolithic ceiling [as seen].
Regarding claim 50, Clark in view of Pellegrin and Barker and Lavin teach a stationary medical office. Furthermore, Clark teaches an emergency power source [generator (Column 3, Line 29)] configured to provide power to the hybrid operating room (Column 3, Lines 30-32).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 4,449,746 to Clark in view of US Patent # 7,347,472 to Pellegrin and US Patent Application Publication 2013/0085609 to Barker and US Patent # 6,155,260 to Lavin et al and US Patent # 6,675,540 to Rokes in further view of US Patent # 7,530,616 to Pomper.
Regarding claim 26, Clark in view of Pellegrin, Barker, Lavin and Rokes teach a stationary medical office but do not teach a gamma knife. However, Pomper teaches using a gamma knife radiation treatment (Columns 5-6, Lines 67-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the Prior Art inventions and have a reasonable expectation of success because Pomper teaches providing radiation sources based upon the treatment needed for the patients (Columns 5-6, Lines 64-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights