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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, and 15 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 8 and 17 is acknowledged by the Examiner. However, due to these claims being amended into claims 1 and 15 respectively, claims 8 and 17 should be canceled and not withdrawn.
Currently claims 1, 8-11, 13-27 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the amendments to the claims distinguish over Danner and the other references relied upon. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the first embodiment of Danner may expressly disclose a contact with the device and the user’s forehead, as discussed in the previous responses, Danner expressly discloses that the shield component (10) is engageable with patient cart (50) when the patient cannot be relied on for stability of the headpiece by 17 and 19 of 20 being inserted into 52 of 50 (see [0042-0044]). Thus, the system of Danner is positionable to be configured such that no portion of the system is configured to be worn on the head of a user.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the shield of Danner would still surround the patient’s head as now claimed. Examiner first notes that Applicant’s specification does not provide support for the newly amended limitation of “no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user”, similarly to Applicant’s previous recitation of “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to be worn on the head of a user”, is not supported anywhere in applicant’s specification or drawings. Contrarily it can be seen in figure 6c at least, that shield 600 is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user. Additionally most if not all of Applicant’s shields are mounted on adjustable structures which allow the many shields of Applicant to be placed in a configuration to surround or partially surround the head of a user. Therefore, this limitation will be considered new matter. Nonetheless, as discussed above the system of Danner is configured to engage with structures such as patient cart (50). Said structure is disclosed by Danner to have adjustable telescoping structures (56 and 59; see [0042-0044]); thus, the system of Danner is positionable to be configured such that no portion of the system is configured to be surround the head of a user
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the embodiment of [0044] (i.e. where 10 is mounted to 50) still retains forehead contact or partially surrounds the patient’s head. Examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed above.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the Examiner has not pointed to concrete evidence that systems which are not configured to engage a user’s head are well known in the field of endeavor. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner has relied upon the reference of Sellars et al. (US 2021/0353380 A1) throughout the entire prosecution of the Application in which it is expressly seen that the shield (12) is not configured to engage a user’s head thereby supporting Examiner’s assertion that systems which are not configured to engage a user’s head are well known in the field of endeavor.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respect to the chamber component of Applicant’s invention, and that Applicant’s drawings does not permit of an interpretation of the chamber component of an area of negative space as with 20 of Danner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s chamber is an opening attached to a vacuum and shield component (see figure 3a, 5a, 8b/c) similar to 20 of Danner. Thus, 20 of Danner will continue to be relied upon to be a chamber component, and Jetter will continue to be relied upon to teach a positioning of diodes.
In regards to applicant’s arguments that Jetter fails to disclose a docking station. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that a plug or receptacle is not a docking station, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A plug receptacle as described in [0018] of Jetter is a “station” in which a plug is inserted or “docked”. Thus, a plug receptacle is considered a docking station for providing electrical power to the system under the BRI of the limitation “docking station”. Applicant’s arguments regarding a (non-analogous) laptop docking station are considered irrelevant as applicant’s invention is not a laptop, it is a shield component and thus is non-analogous to a laptop.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of Danner in view of O’Connor, that to position the device of Danner five feet away from the patient would render Danner inoperable for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the previous action, Danner’s device is contemplated as having 17 and 19 being attached to other strucutres, not to the user’s head. Thus, Danner’s device is capable of being positioned five or six feet away. Additionally, the device of Danner if positioned 5 feet away would still be capable of being put into close proximity to the patient for the shield’s intended purpose.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the priority document of Danner (US 63/014,770). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to Danner [0038] which states 17 and 19 are intended to “gently squeeze or grab the patient’s head with a comfortable friction fit” and alternately 17 or 19 (and therefore also an embodiment of both) do not have contact with the patient’s head and “can rest on the chair or pillow that is supporting the patient’s head”. Danner ‘770 discloses the same feature in [0025] stating the aforementioned section verbatim. Therefore, Danner ‘770 provides support for an embodiment of the device which does not retain forehead contact as described in [0038] of the relied-on publication of Danner. Additionally Examiner notes that Danner ‘770 provides support for an alternative embodiment of the device attached to structure (50; see [0028]) which again is for “situations when the patient cannot be relied upon for stability of the head piece”.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter situations regarding the limitation of “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to be worn on the head of a user”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the previous action for something to be “not configured to” perform an action, the object must not be capable at all of performing said action (in the instant case being worn on the head of the user). The term “wear” (and therefore worn) is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “to bear or have on the person” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wear). Thus, by definition as applicant has suggested “the end of the shield distal the dolly or other object would be contacting (or bearing against) the user’s head. Thus, the shield (and therefore a portion of the system) is considered capable of being “worn” by the patient. Thus, the limitation of “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to be worn on the head of a user” is still considered new matter for the reasons discussed in this action and the previous action mailed 09/19/2024.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the specific location and distance of their chamber component with respect to the shield component. These arguments are irrelevant to Applicant’s claims and do not overcome the prior art, because no location or distance with respect to any structure of the system and the chamber component is recited in the claims. Thus, Applicant cannot argue things that are not claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are not persuasive as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the provisional application of Danner are not persuasive as discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Danner contacting a user’s head in the rejection of Danner in view of Jetter are not persuasive as discussed above.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the frame 20a being a part of a monolithic unit to contact a patient’s head. Examiner points to [0029] which states (similar to [0038]) “in another example, the frame 20a is supported on a bed 156 or chair 154 on either side of the patient's head (not on the patient’s head). In one example, a visor portion 25 extends out and away from the patient's forehead, for example, 10 inches, and is coupled with shield 15”. Thus, conclusively Danner discloses embodiments not seen in the figures wherein 17 and 19 of 20 does not contact a user’s head and instead is positioned on a bed or chair supporting 20 above the user’s head.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Danner and Jetter. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First in regards to Applicant’s arguments that Jetter fails to disclose locating one or more diodes emitting ultraviolet light between an interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual. In fact, Jetter teaches away from the claimed position. Examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed in the previous action mailed 09/19/2024. As discussed in the previous action: in the rejection of Danner in view of Jetter, Danner’s chamber component 20 has been modified to include the diodes for disinfecting as taught by Jetter. as seen in figure 5 of Danner, 15 is intended to engage 25 with fasteners 24 (see [0031]). It can also be seen that 20 extends below the intended engagement point of 15 to 25, thus inclusion of diodes onto 20 as suggested by the Examiner in the combination of Danner in view of Jetter, would place the diodes on 20 at a lower point than the shield, thereby positioning the diodes “between the shield component and the user”. Thus, while Jetter alone may not disclose the claim limitations. The combination of Danner in view of Jetter does.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Jetter fails to solve the deficiency of Danner being positioned on a head of a user. As discussed above, it is clearly described in [0029] and [0038] that 17 and 19 of 20 can be alternately attached to a bed or a chair, and thus the system of Danner in said alternate embodiment is not attached to the user’s head. Thus, Jetter is not required to teach said feature.
In regards to applicant’s arguments that Jetter fails to disclose a docking station. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that a plug or receptacle is not a docking station, Examiner respectfully disagrees. A plug receptacle as described in [0018] of Jetter is a “station” in which a plug is inserted or “docked”. Thus, a plug receptacle is considered a docking station for providing electrical power to the system under the BRI of the limitation “docking station”.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of Danner in view of Zabari, Sellars, Sloane, Bailey, Rukavina, and O’Conner: claims 1 and 15 are not allowable. The rejections are maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments of Danner in view of Jetter and further in view of Reiss, Danner clearly discloses attachment to a chair (see [0038]). Danner and Jetter both teach the use of a suctioning device (see Danner [0028], and Jetter [0014]). As further stated, Jetter directly teaches the use of said suctioning device on an aircraft (see Jetter [0018]). The combination of Danner in view of Jetter results in the use of the system in an aircraft seat. What Danner and Jetter fail to disclose is wherein the suctioning component is operatively connected to a ventilation system of the aircraft. However, as stated in the rejection Reiss teaches an analogous suctioning device (10; see [0092]; see figure 1; considered analogous in that 10 functions as a vacuum pump for removal of air from an internal space which is similar to both references Danner and Jetter’s suctioning devices) wherein the suctioning component (10) is operatively connected to a ventilation system (1; see [0092]; see figure 1) of the air craft (see figure 6) for the purpose of creating a ventilation system which removes unwanted aspects of contaminated air (see [0003] and [0010]). Thus, a location of the suctioning system being in a galley, a lavatory, or a toilet is considered irrelevant. Examiner relied on Reiss to simply teach the integration of a suction unit such as that disclosed by the combination of Danner in view of Jetter to a ventilation system of the aircraft which is clearly made obvious by Reiss. Thus, a combination of Danner, Jetter, and Reiss teaches applicant’s intended use of placing their device on board an aircraft attached to the ventilation system. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). As can be clearly seen in figure 6c, Applicant’s shield is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user. Additionally as discussed above, Applicant’s shield in most embodiments is positioned on a pivoting structure capable of putting Applicant’s shield in a position to surround the user’s face. No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not provide explicit support for the negative limitations of
“wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to be worn on the head of a user; and
wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 each recite “a user” in each final wherein statement. While not unclear, the second recitation of “a user” in each claim should be amended to recite “the user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9-11, 13-16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 present the limitation “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to be worn on the head of a user”. As stated above, Applicant’s specification does not provide support for the exclusory language of “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to be worn on the head of a user” as discussed above. Therefore, this limitation is considered to be new matter.
Claims 1 and 15 present the limitation “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user”. As stated above, Applicant’s specification does not provide support for the exclusory language of “wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission is configured to surround or partially surround the head of a user” as discussed above. Additionally at least Applicant’s figure 6c show an embodiment in which the shield in fact, surrounds the head of a user. Therefore, this limitation is considered to be new matter.
Claims 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as the claims depend from claims 1 and 15 respectively and therefore contain the same offending limitaitons.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 13-15, 20, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter (US 2021/0346564 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Danner discloses A system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (system as seen in figure 2 and described in [0028]) comprising:
a shield (10; see [0028]; see figure 1) that includes:
a transparent shield component (15; see [0030]; see figure 1);
a chamber component (20; see [0029]; see figure 1; 20 defines a space in which the user’s head is contained and is therefore considered to be a “chamber”); and
a vacuum (150; see [0028]; see figure 11; see [0047] in reference to 150 including a vacuum source) operatively attached to the shield (see [0028] in reference to the pump being coupled to 10 and therefore 15) for suctioning aerosol from a space (100; see [0028]; see figure 1) between said shield transparent shield component (15; see [0037]) and an individual (5; see [0041]; see figure 2) occupying an object (154, 156; see [0029]; see figure 2) over which the substantially shield component (15) has been placed (see figure 2; see [0049]);
wherein the transparent shield component (15) the chamber component (20), and the vacuum (150) is a fully integrated unit (15, 20, and 150 work together to complete the intended function of maintaining aerosols within 100 and suctioning them from 100; see [0028]; see [0049]);
wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission (system as seen in figure 2) is configured to be worn on the head of a user (see [0042-0044] in reference to in reference to 10 engaging with 50 when the patient cannot be relied on for stability of the headpiece by 17 and 19 of 20 being inserted into 52 of 50; thus, the system is positionable to be configured such that no portion of the system is configured to be worn on the head of a user); and
wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission (system as seen in figure 2) is configured to surround of partially surround the head of a user (see [0042] in reference to the telescoping nature of 56 in or out of 59; thus, the system is positionable to be configured such that no portion of the system is configured to be surround the head of a user).
Danner does not disclose wherein the chamber component further comprises one or more diodes emitting ultraviolet light for disinfecting the aerosols located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual.
However, Jetter teaches an analogous system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (100; see [0014]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous substantially transparent shield component (110; see [0014]; see figure 1), and an analogous chamber component (183a2; see [0019]; see figure 1); wherein the chamber component (183a2) further comprises one or more diodes emitting ultraviolet light (see [0017] in reference to 183a2 utilizing one of a ultraviolet (UV) light, natural silver, and sterilizing heat to eliminate airborne microbes from the air; thus the disclosure of UV lights is construed to mean that 183a2 utilized UV emitting diodes or light sources) for the purpose of providing a means to eliminate microbes by breaking down their genetic structures whether DNA-based or RNA-based by damaging the DNA or the RNA, and also deactivating the microbes reproductive capabilities (see [0017]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber component as disclosed by Danner and to have included the one or more diodes emitting ultraviolet light as taught by Jetter in order to have provided an improved chamber component that would add the benefit of providing a means to eliminate microbes by breaking down their genetic structures whether DNA-based or RNA-based by damaging the DNA or the RNA, and also deactivating the microbes reproductive capabilities (see [0017]).
With regards to the remaining limitaitons of “for disinfecting the aerosols located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to realize that a modification of the chamber component of Danner to include the ultraviolet lights as taught by Jetter results in the claimed functionality, given that the shield of Danner is intended to prevent the passage of aerosols out of, and suction them from internal space 100, thus a placement for the UV lights for disinfection as taught by Jetter would be placed in the location where the aerosols are located (near the interior space 100), resulting in a disinfection of aerosols between the interior surface of the shield and the patient.
In regards to claim 10, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses further comprising an air filter (see [0047] in reference to “The pump 150 may include a vacuum source 152 configured to pull air (or forcing air to move aka pumping) from the protective volume 100 and filter it to remove any contagious particulate in the air”, thus 150 filtering and removing particulates is construed to comprise an air filter).
In regards to claim 13, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses wherein the fully integrated unit (15, 20, 150) further comprises storage for replacement transparent shields (15; see [0030] in reference to 15 being disposable and replaceable between patients, thus implying that there are a plurality of 15 to be used once per patient, and therefore there is an inherent storage space for containing additional 15 to be used).
In regards to claim 14, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not explicitly disclose a docking station for providing electrical power to the system.
However, Danner does disclose the system (10) comprises a vacuum (150) which inherently requires some form of electricity in order to carry out its intended functionality (see [0033] in reference to vacuum source 152 which inherently requires electricity).
However, Jetter further teaches a docking station (see [0018] in reference to 100 may include an electrical receptacle (plug or docking station) that is adapted to receive electrical power, and is wired to provide electricity including to the microbe killer devices) for providing electrical power to the system (100; see [0018]) for the purpose of providing electricity to the microbe killer (see [0018]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the docking station as further taught by Jetter in order to have provided an improved system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease that would add the benefit of ensuring the system had electricity to function as intended and for the purpose of providing electricity to the microbe killer (see [0018]).
In regards to claim 15, Danner discloses A system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (10; see [0028]; see figure 1) comprising:
a transparent shield component (15; see [0030]; see figure 1);
a chamber component (20; see [0029]; see figure 1; 20 defines a space in which the user’s head is contained and is therefore considered to be a “chamber”); and
a vacuum (150; see [0028]; see figure 11; see [0047] in reference to 150 including a vacuum source) for suctioning aerosol from a space (100; see [0028]; see figure 1) between said transparent shield component (15; see [0037]) and an individual (5; see [0041]; see figure 2) occupying an object (154, 156; see [0029]; see figure 2) over which the transparent shield component (15) has been placed (see figure 2); and
wherein the transparent shield component (15) the chamber component (20), and the vacuum (150) is a fully integrated unit (15, 20, and 150 work together to complete the intended function of maintaining aerosols within 100 and suctioning them from 100; see [0028]; see [0049])
wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission (system as seen in figure 2) is configured to be worn on the head of a user (see [0042-0044] in reference to in reference to 10 engaging with 50 when the patient cannot be relied on for stability of the headpiece by 17 and 19 of 20 being inserted into 52 of 50; thus, the system is positionable to be configured such that no portion of the system is configured to be worn on the head of a user); and
wherein no portion of the system for mitigating risk of transmission (system as seen in figure 2) is configured to surround of partially surround the head of a user (see [0042] in reference to the telescoping nature of 56 in or out of 59; thus, the system is positionable to be configured such that no portion of the system is configured to be surround the head of a user).
Danner does not disclose the chamber component comprising diodes that emit ultraviolet light for disinfecting aerosols;
wherein the diodes are located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual.
However, Jetter teaches an analogous system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (100; see [0014]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous substantially transparent shield component (110; see [0014]; see figure 1), and an analogous chamber component (183a2; see [0019]; see figure 1); the chamber component (183a2) comprising diodes that emit ultraviolet light for disinfecting aerosols (see [0017] in reference to 183a2 utilizing one of a ultraviolet (UV) light, natural silver, and sterilizing heat to eliminate airborne microbes from the air; thus the disclosure of UV lights is construed to mean that 183a2 utilized UV emitting diodes or light sources) for the purpose of providing a means to eliminate microbes by breaking down their genetic structures whether DNA-based or RNA-based by damaging the DNA or the RNA, and also deactivating the microbes reproductive capabilities (see [0017]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the chamber component as disclosed by Danner and to have included the diodes that emit ultraviolet light to disinfect aerosols as taught by Jetter in order to have provided an improved chamber component that would add the benefit of providing a means to eliminate microbes by breaking down their genetic structures whether DNA-based or RNA-based by damaging the DNA or the RNA, and also deactivating the microbes reproductive capabilities (see [0017]).
With regards to the remaining limitaitons of “wherein the diodes are located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to realize that a modification of the chamber component of Danner to include the ultraviolet lights as taught by Jetter results in the claimed functionality, given that the shield of Danner is intended to prevent the passage of aerosols out of, and suction them from internal space 100, thus a placement for the UV lights for disinfection as taught by Jetter would be placed in the location where the aerosols are located (near the interior space 100), resulting in the diodes being located between the interior surface of the shield and the patient.
In regards to claim 20, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not explicitly disclose a docking station provides electrical power to the system.
However, Danner does disclose the system (10) comprises a vacuum (150) which inherently requires some form of electricity in order to carry out its intended functionality (see [0033] in reference to vacuum source 152 which inherently requires electricity).
However, Jetter further teaches a docking station (see [0018] in reference to 100 may include an electrical receptacle (plug or docking station) that is adapted to receive electrical power, and is wired to provide electricity including to the microbe killer devices) provides electrical power to the system (100; see [0018]) for the purpose of providing electricity to the microbe killer (see [0018]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the docking station as further taught by Jetter in order to have provided an improved system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease that would add the benefit of ensuring the system had electricity to function as intended and for the purpose of providing electricity to the microbe killer (see [0018]).
In regards to claim 26, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses further comprising an air filter (see [0059] in reference to 150 filtering the air, therefore 150 is considered to include a filter).
In regards to claim 27, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses further comprising an arm (17/19; see [0029]; see figure 2) supporting the transparent shield (15) in a predetermined fixed position spaced from the object to be occupied by an individual (see [0038] in reference to 17 and 19 resting on a pillow or chair, and see [0029] in reference to embodiments which are supported on a chair or a bed (17 and 19 are the only structures defined as “supporting” with respect to 20a and a mounting of 20a, and therefore are considered to support 20a no matter the attachment) and not attached to the user’s head, the device is maintained in a position 10 inches away from the patient’s forehead).
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zabari (US 2008/0223384 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose wherein the transparent shield component comprises a magnifying material located in a section of the transparent shield component.
However, Zabari teaches an analogous transparent shield component (110; see [0027]; see figure 1) wherein the transparent shield component (110) comprises a magnifying material (see [0027] in reference to 110 being a magnifying material) for the purpose of improving the professional’s working environment (see [Abstract]) in a section of the transparent shield component (110; 110 being made from a magnifying material, means 110 comprises a magnifying material in all sections of 110).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the substantially transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have used a magnifying material such that magnifying material is found in a section (all sections) of the shield component as taught by Zabari in order to have provided an improved transparent shield component that would add the benefit of improving the professional’s working environment (see [Abstract]) in the instant case providing a magnification means that would allow the professional to see miniscule abnormalities in the patient.
In regards to claim 11, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner does not disclose further comprising a light source located on an interior surface of the substantially shield component.
However, Zabari teaches an analogous transparent shield component (110; see [0027]; see figure 1) further comprising a light source (160; see [0027]; see figure 3) located on an interior surface (see figure 3) of the transparent shield component (110; see figure 3) for the purpose of illuminating the working area (see [0027]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interior surface of the transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the light source on the interior surface of the transparent shield component as taught by Zabari in order to have provided an improved of the transparent shield component that would add the benefit of illuminating the working area (see [0027]), thereby ensuring the professional can see the user’s mouth or whatever portion of the patient is being examined at the time.
In regards to claim 18, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose wherein the transparent shield component comprises a magnifying material located in a section of the transparent shield component.
However, Zabari teaches an analogous transparent shield component (110; see [0027]; see figure 1) wherein the transparent shield component (110) comprises a magnifying material (see [0027] in reference to 110 being a magnifying material) for the purpose of improving the professional’s working environment (see [Abstract]) in a section of the transparent shield component (110; 110 being made from a magnifying material, means 110 comprises a magnifying material in all sections of 110).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the substantially transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have used a magnifying material such that magnifying material is found in a section (all sections) of the shield component as taught by Zabari in order to have provided an improved transparent shield component that would add the benefit of improving the professional’s working environment (see [Abstract]) in the instant case providing a magnification means that would allow the professional to see miniscule abnormalities in the patient.
In regards to claim 19, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose further comprising a lighting located on an interior surface of the substantially transparent shield component.
However, Zabari teaches an analogous transparent shield component (110; see [0027]; see figure 1) further comprising a light source (160; see [0027]; see figure 3) located on an interior surface (see figure 3) of the transparent shield component (110; see figure 3) for the purpose of illuminating the working area (see [0027]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interior surface of the transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the light source on the interior surface of the transparent shield component as taught by Zabari in order to have provided an improved of the transparent shield component that would add the benefit of illuminating the working area (see [0027]), thereby ensuring the professional can see the user’s mouth or whatever portion of the patient is being examined at the time.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sellars et al. (US 2021/0353380 A1) (hereinafter Sellars).
In regards to claim 16, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose wherein the system is mountable to a wall.
However, Sellars teaches an analogous system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (10; see [0047]; see figure 1) comprising: an integrated unit (12, 14, 16, 18; see [0047]; see figure 1); wherein the system (10 which comprises structures 12, 14, 16, 18) is mountable to a wall (see figure 1; see [0047]) for the purpose of providing a flexibility of mounting locations, meaning any treatment room or facility can be outfitted with the shield (see [0047]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection of the system as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have mounted the system to the wall as taught by Sellars in order to have provided an improved system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease that would add the benefit of providing a flexibility of mounting locations, meaning any treatment room or facility can be outfitted with the shield (see [0047]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sloane (US 2,485,325).
In regards to claim 21, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses wherein the transparent shield component (15) is operatively attached to a dolly (50; see [0042]; see figure 6; 50 is described as being a patient cart; however, 50 being a structure on wheels for supporting a device is considered to be a dolly) comprising:
a dolly arm (54; see [0042]; see figure 6) configured to rotate around a head of the individual (50 is on wheels, therefore 54 is configured (via the wheels) to rotate around a patient’s head),
a dolly upward extending aspect (56; see [0042]; see figure 6) attached to and supporting the dolly arm (54; see figure 6), and
a dolly base (58; see [0042]; see figure 6) attached to the dolly upward extending aspect (56) distal to the dolly arm (54; see figure 6).
Danner does not disclose the dolly base is a foldable dolly tripod.
However, Sloane teaches an analogous dolly (10; see [Col 2 ln 50-55]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous base (base as seen figure 1); wherein the base is a foldable dolly tripod (see figure 2 and 3; see [Col 3 ln 5-15]) for the purpose of providing a base which occupies as little space as possible (See [Col 1 ln 43-50]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base of the dolly as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have formed the base of the dolly as a folding tripod as taught by Sloane in order to have provided an improved dolly base that would add the benefit of providing a base capable of folding when not in use, and therefore, occupy as little space as possible when stored (see [Col 1 ln 43-50]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailey (US 2017/0319416 A1).
In regards to claim 22, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses further comprising an arm (46; see [0045]; see figure 9) located between a mounting aspect (47; see [0045]; see figure 9) and the transparent shield component (15; see figure 9),
wherein the arm (46) is configured to extend and rotate about a dental lamp (45) attached to the arm (46; see [0045] in reference to the extending aspect of 46 by sliding 47 with respect to 46; further see [0045] in reference to adjusting 10 via an adjustment of the light, due to the securement, 46 is considered to rotate about the dental light in the event of a rotation of the dental light);
wherein the transparent shield component (15) is extendable over the individual occupying the object (see [0045]).
Danner does not explicitly disclose wherein the dental lamp is extendable and rotatable.
However, Bailey teaches an analogous dental lamp (35; see [0019]; see figure 1) wherein the dental lamp (35) is extendable and rotatable (extendable from placing arms 34, 36, and 39 from a stored (folded) to an extended position (unfolded) and rotatable (joints 37 and 38 are rotating joints); see [0019] in reference to the movement of the light) for the purpose of moving the light into an area corresponding to the patient’s mouth being worked on (See [0019]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental lamp as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have given it the capability to be extended and rotated as taught by Bailey in order to have provided an improved dental lamp that would add the benefit of extending and rotating such that the light is moved into an area corresponding to the patient’s mouth being worked on (see [0019]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiss et al. (US 2014/0349561 A1).
In regards to claim 23, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses wherein the object is a seat (154; see [0028] and [0038]) and the transparent shield (15) is operatively attached to the seat (154; see [0028] and [0038]).
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose the seat is in an aircraft, and
wherein the vacuum is operatively connected to a ventilation system of the aircraft.
However, Jetter further teaches the system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (100; see [0014]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous substantially transparent shield component (110; see [0014]; see figure 1); utilized within an aircraft (see [0018]) for the purpose of reducing a potentially dangerous ambient because it may include microbes from one or more infected individuals on the airplane (see [0018]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of the system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have utilized the system on an aircraft as further taught by Jetter in order to have provided an improved system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease that would add the benefit of reducing a potentially dangerous ambient because it may include microbes from one or more infected individuals on the airplane (see [0018]) thereby reducing the chance that deadly pathogens from one state, country, or continent may spread across borders.
Danner as now modified by Jetter still does not disclose wherein the vacuum is operatively connected to a ventilation system of the aircraft.
However, Reiss teaches an analogous vacuum (10; see [0092]; see figure 1; considered analogous in that 10 functions as a vacuum pump for removal of air from an internal space which is similar to both references Danner and Jetter’s suctioning devices) wherein the vacuum (10) is operatively connected to a ventilation system (1; see [0092]; see figure 1) of the air craft (see figure 6) for the purpose of creating a ventilation system which removes unwanted aspects of contaminated air (see [0003] and [0010]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the suctioning system as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter (now placed within an aircraft as taught by Jetter) operatively to a ventilation system of the aircraft as taught by Reiss in order to have provided an improved system that would add the benefit of creating a ventilation system which removes unwanted aspects of contaminated air (see [0003] and [0010]), in the instant case, such a modification would remove the unwanted pathogens of the air.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner as now modified by Jetter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saunders (US 3,377,082), and Rukavina et al. (US 2005/0011035 A1) (hereinafter Rukavina).
In regards to claim 24, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses wherein the substantially transparent shield component (15) is operatively attached to a seat (154; see [0028]) and is extendable over the individual occupying said seat (154; see figure 2 that 15 is intended to be positioned over an individual located on a seat, thus 15 is extendable from said seat, 154, it is operatively connected to over the individual occupying the seat).
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose wherein the seat is in an automobile, and
wherein the vacuum is configured to fit within a console compartment of the automobile.
However, Saunders teaches an analogous substantially transparent shield component (31; see [Col 2 ln 40-56]; see figure 1) operatively attached to a seat (34; see [Col 2 ln 40-49]; see figure 1); wherein the seat (34) is in an automobile (see figure 1) for the purpose of providing a means of shielding flying objects (such as airborne particulates) (see [Col 1 ln 33-40]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have provided the substantially transparent shield component is operatively attached to a seat in an automobile as taught by Saunders in order to have provided an improved system for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease that would add the benefit of shielding flying objects (such as airborne particulates) (see [Col 1 ln 33-40]) thereby reducing the risk of the transmission of infectious diseases spread from passenger to driver or driver to passenger as society turns more to ride share transportation in heavily populated areas.
Danner as now modified by Jetter and Saunders does not disclose wherein the vacuum is configured to fit within a console compartment of the automobile.
However, Rukavina teaches an analogous suctioning device (70; see [0030]; see figure 4; 70 is considered analogous to 150 of Danner given that both devices are defined as vacuum sources (see Danner [0033] and Rukavina [0030])) for the analogous purpose of filtering the air that passes through the suctioning device (see [0032]); wherein the vacuum (70) is configured to fit within a console compartment (12; see [0025] that 12 is a floor mounted console; see figure 2) of the automobile.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vacuum as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and Saunders by configuring the vacuum to fit within a console compartment of the automobile as taught by Rukavina in order to have provided an improved vacuum with increased storage capability which allows the vacuum to be stored in a convenient location (within the console) in the automobile in such a way that would not affect passenger/storage space of the automobile when the system of Danner as now modified by Saunders is in use.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Really? Flu Is Spread Primarily Through Close Contact” by ANAHAD O'CONNOR published 02/11/2013.
In regards to claim 25, Danner as now modified by Jetter discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner further discloses wherein the object is a bed (156; see [0028]) and the transparent shield component (15) is operatively attached to the bed (156; see [0028]) and extends in a horizontal plane (see figure 1 that 15 extends in a horizontal plane) over the bed and over the individual occupying the bed (see [0029] in reference to positioning the device over the patient in the bed, therefore the device extends from the mounting position over the bed and the patient).
Danner as now modified by Jetter does not disclose the transparent shield component extends at least five feet over the bed and the individual.
However, O’Connor teaches that people who are infected with the flu, when sneezing and coughing can send virus particles shooting six feet away (see paragraph 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning of the transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter to a position six feet away over the bed and the individual based on the fact that as taught by O’Connor sneezing and coughing can send virus particles up to 6 feet away; a positioning of the system of Danner as now modified by Jetter to be six feet over the user’s bed would add the benefit of allowing the system, when not in direct use with the patient, to still capture the viral particles at their maximum ejection distance of six feet, and then utilizing the mounting feature (27) which attaches to structures (120; see [0035] in reference to 120 being bed 156) as seen in figures 9 (while seen to be attached to a light, note [0045] references attachment to structure 120 which as discussed above can be a bed, 156) to extend the system down to the patient such that the intended use of the device of Danner is not affected and is still capable of being positioned as described in [0029].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached on 571-270-3076. 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 A MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3786