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, 10, and 15 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 8 and 21 are acknowledged by the Examiner. However, due to these claims being amended into claims 1, claims 8 should be canceled and not withdrawn.
Applicant’s addition of new claims 22 and 23 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Currently claims 1, 8-11, 13-15, and 21-23 are currently pending in the application. With claims 8 and 21 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 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 described in [0029] may expressly disclose a contact with the device and the user’s forehead stating “In one example, the frame 20a is configured to support the patient barrier device 10 on the patient's head”, the second embodiment as discussed in [0029], [0034], and [0038] states “the frame 20a is supported on a bed 156 or chair 154 on either side of the patient's head” ([0029]), “the frame 20a is configured to be supported on a bed 156 or chair 154 on either side of the patient's head with first mounting arm 17 and second mounting arm 19” ([0034]), and “Alternately, the mounting features 27, or first mounting arm 17 and second mounting arm 19 can rest on the chair 154 or pillow that is supporting the patient's head” ([0038]). Thereby expressly stating that in the second embodiment 17 and 19 do not engage, or are worn on a user’s head as in the first embodiment, but instead rest on the chair or pillow on either side of the patient’s head. Thus, Danner discloses the second embodiment of the shield is not worn on or contacts the head of a user. Additionally, Danner also discloses in [0042-0044] that when the patient cannot be relied on for stability of the headpiece, 10 engages with 50 by 17 and 19 of 20 being inserted into 52 of 50. Thereby contemplating a third embodiment which also is not worn by or contacts the user’s head
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding “Danner’s system surrounds or partially surrounds a user’s head”: these arguments were copied and pasted from co-pending application 16/924,649. The instant application claims no such lack of surrounding or partial surrounding and thus, these arguments are irrelevant to the instant application.
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 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 with regards to positioning the device of Danner 5 feet away as taught by O’Connor. Applicant has withdrawn claim 21 from consideration. Therefore, these arguments are considered irrelevant to the examined claims.
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”.
In regards to applicant’s arguments that the embodiment as described in [0042-0046] of Danner is required to be mounted on a user’s head. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 shield of Danner when positioned on the patient cart (50) is not required to be mounted on a user’s head as suggested by Applicant.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments of the reference of Arts, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection of claim 9, Arts teaches a device comprising a video camera and an LCD monitor, the video camera being positioned in a position closer to the patient than the operator, and displaying the closer image of the patient on the monitor, is considered a magnifying aspect due to the fact that the displayed image would be a closer view of the patient. Thus, arts discloses a magnifying aspect as claimed. In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the position of the user and the display screen. These arguments are considered irrelevant due to their hypothetical nature and lack of evidentiary support found in the prior art. Contrarily as discussed in Arts paragraph [0103] “the system 56 is coupled to 30…The component 314 (a portion of 56 as seen in figure 20) includes … video display, such as a video camera and a LCD monitor… to provide for a local communication link between the patient and a person in the immediate vicinity of the isolation space 30”. Additionally nowhere in the disclosure of Arts is it contemplated that the display is in any way shape or form remote from the immediate vicinity of the shield. Thus, applicant’s hypothetical situation of “others in different locations entirely” is considered incorrect as Arts clearly intends for the LCD display connected to the camera (which provides a closer view of the patient) to be viewed by someone in the immediate vicinity of the shield component.
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 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.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of Danner and Jetter. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, Danner and Danner ‘770 discloses embodiments not engaged to the user’s head. Applicant’s additional arguments in this section regarding a connection to the user’s head are considered non-persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Danner fails to disclose a chamber component as claimed. First, Examiner notes that the chamber (20) of Danner may be operatively attached to the suction component (150)and may extend to an aperture (26; see [0037]). Thus, the only structure lacking from the chamber of Danner are the diodes for emitting ultra-violet light which is taught by Jetter as discussed in previous rejections. In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Jetter fails to disclose disinfecting aerosols located between the shield component and the individual via ultraviolet light emitted from one or more diodes located between the interior surface of the transparent shield and the individual, and that in fact, Jetter teaches away from the claimed position. Examiner respectfully disagrees 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 discloses disinfecting aerosols located between the shield component and the individual via ultraviolet light emitted from one or more diodes located between the interior surface of the transparent shield and the individual.
Applicant’s additional arguments with regards to the docking station are non-persuasive as discussed above.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to Arts are non-persuasive as discussed above.
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).
Therefore, the claim rejections are maintained. Furthermore, claims 22 and 23 will be addressed in view of the newly found reference of Zaugg et al. (US 2021/0321885 A1) (which has an effective filing date of 04/21/2020 due to the fully incorporated and supported provisional application 63/013,464 which discloses each feature found in the disclosure of the publication of Zaugg, and therefore has an earlier effective filing date than applicant’s 05/17/2020 and qualifies as prior art).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner (US 2021/0330419 A1) in view of Jetter (US 2021/0346564 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Danner discloses A method for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (system as seen in figure 2 and described in [0028]) comprising:
positioning a planar shield (10; see [0028]; see figure 1; see [0032] in reference to 15 being substantially planar; therefore, 10 having planar components is considered a planar shield) having a transparent shield component (15; see [0030]; see figure 1) and 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”) spaced from and above an individual occupying an object (154 or 156; see [0028]; see [0031] in reference to 10 inches of space between 10 and the individual) such that no contact is made between the shield and the individual (see [0029], [0034], and [0038] in reference to 17 and 19 resting on the chair or bed on either side of the patient’s head (not on the patient’s head), thus when 17 and 19 rest on the chair or bed, no contact is made between 10 and the individual; additionally see [0042-0044] that when the patient cannot be relied on for stability of the headpiece, 10 engages with 50 by 17 and 19 of 20 being inserted into 52 of 50 and does not contact the user’s head); and
suctioning aerosol from a space (100; see [0028]; see figure 1) between said transparent shield component (15) and the individual (see [0037]) via a vacuum (150; see [0028]; see figure 11; see [0047] in reference to 150 including a vacuum source) operatively attached to the chamber component (20; connected via 32; see [0037]); wherein the transparent shield component (15), the chamber component (20), and the vacuum (150) are 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]; therefore, 15, 20, and 150 are considered a fully integrated unit);
wherein no portion of the shield (10) having the transparent shield component (15) and the chamber component (20) is worn on a head of the individual (See [0029], [0034], [0038], and [0042-0044] as discussed above).
Danner does not disclose disinfecting aerosols located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual via ultraviolet light emitted from one or more diodes 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]) located on an interior surface of the chamber component (the UV lights are considered to be located on the interior of 183a2 to disinfect the aerosols passing through 183a2 into 132; given that if they were on the outside they would be unable to disinfect the aerosols passing through 183a2).
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 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 limitations of “further comprising disinfecting aerosols located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual via ultraviolet light emitted from one or more diodes located between the interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual”: the chamber component’s interior surface (interior surface of 20) has been modified to include disinfecting UV lights (see discussion above). Therefore, due to the functionality of Danner’s device suctioning the aerosols from 100 (an interior side of 15; see [0037]) via the vacuum providing a suctioning force to draw aerosols from 100 through 20 and 32 away from the patient (see [0037]), 20 disinfects aerosols located in space 100 (the space between the interior surface of 15 and the individual) via ultraviolet light emitted from one or more diodes housed within the chamber component (as taught by Jetter). Furthermore 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 interior surface of the transparent shield component and the individual”
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 docking the shield in a docking station for providing electrical power to the transparent shield component, the chamber component, and the vacuum.
However, Danner does disclose the system (10) comprises a suctioning component (150), operatively connected with the chamber component (20), and the substantially transparent shield component (15), the suctioning component (150) of the system (10) 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 docking the system (100) in a docking station (electrical receptacle; see [0018] in reference to 100 may include an electrical receptacle the electrical receptacle allows for a docking of power plugs into them, and therefore the electrical receptacle is considered a docking station) for providing electrical power to the transparent shield component (110), the chamber component (183a2), and the vacuum (132; see [0018] in reference to 100 (and therefore all associated structures) being adapted to receive electrical power, and is wired to provide electricity including to the microbe killer devices) 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 step of docking the shield in a docking station as 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]).
Claim(s) 9-11 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 Arts et al. (US 2006/0247847 A1) (hereinafter Arts).
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 further comprises a magnifying aspect comprising a camera and display screen operatively connected to the camera located in a section of the transparent shield component.
However, Arts teaches an analogous method for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (see [0004-0005]); comprising an analogous substantially transparent shield component (20; see [0046]; see figures 17a-e); wherein the transparent shield component (20) further comprises a magnifying aspect (314; see [0103] in reference to 30 (being defined by 20 as evidenced by [0048], therefore 20 contains and comprises 314) comprising a video camera and an LCD monitor, the video camera being positioned in a position closer to the patient than the operator, and displaying the closer image of the patient on the monitor, is considered a magnifying aspect due to the fact that the displayed image would be a closer view of the patient) comprising a camera (video camera; see [0103]) and display screen (lcd monitor; see [0103]) operatively connected to the camera (see [0103]) located in a section of the transparent shield component (see figure 20 that 314 has a connection which extends through the barrier defining 30, therefore at least a portion of 314 is considered located in a section of the transparent shield component); and
wherein the display screen (LCD monitor) presents content captured by and magnified from the camera (video camera; see [0103] in reference to a video signal generator and video display, thus, the camera sends content captured by the camera to the LCD monitor, as also discussed above displaying the closer image of the patient on the monitor, is considered a magnifying aspect due to the fact that the displayed image would be a closer view of the patient) for the purpose of facilitating communication between a patient within the isolation space (see [0103]).
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 transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the magnifying aspect comprising a camera and display located in a portion of the transparent shield component as taught by Arts in order to have provided an improved transparent shield component that would add the benefit of facilitating communication between a patient within the isolation space (see [0103]) and the inclusion of the camera and display system would allow the operator to maintain more distance from the patient while still being able to have a view of the patient and the workspace, thereby reducing the risk of infection.
In regards to claim 10, 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 aspect, wherein the magnifying aspect consists of one or more of the following: magnifying glass, light emitting diodes, and a camera communicatively connected to a display screen.
However, Arts teaches an analogous method for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (see [0004-0005]); comprising an analogous substantially transparent shield component (20; see [0046]; see figures 17a-e); wherein the transparent shield component (20) further comprises a magnifying aspect (314; see [0103] in reference to 30 (being defined by 20 as evidenced by [0048], therefore 20 contains and comprises 314) comprising a video camera and an LCD monitor, the video camera being positioned in a position closer to the patient than the operator, and displaying the closer image of the patient on the monitor, is considered a magnifying aspect due to the fact that the displayed image would be a closer view of the patient) wherein the magnifying aspect (314) consists of: a camera (video camera; see [0103]) communicatively connected to a display screen (lcd monitor; see [0103]) for the purpose of facilitating communication between a patient within the isolation space (see [0103]).
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 transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the magnifying aspect comprising a camera and a display screen as taught by Arts in order to have provided an improved transparent shield component that would add the benefit of facilitating communication between a patient within the isolation space (see [0103]) and the inclusion of the camera and display system would allow the operator to maintain more distance from the patient while still being able to have a view of the patient and the workspace, thereby reducing the risk of infection.
In regards to claim 11, Danner as now modified by Jetter and Arts discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Arts further discloses wherein said display screen comprises a liquid crystal display (see Arts [0103] that the display is an LCD screen).
Claim(s) 10 and 22-23 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 Zaugg et al. (US 2021/0321885 A1) which claims benefit to earlier filed and fully supported provisional application 63/013,464 filed 04/21/2020 (hereinafter Zaugg).
In regards to claim 10, 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 aspect, wherein the magnifying aspect consists of one or more of the following: magnifying glass, light emitting diodes, and a camera communicatively connected to a display screen.
However, Zaugg teaches an analogous planar shield (1205; see [0065]; see figure 13) comprising a transparent shield component (1240; see [0065]; see figure 13) for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (see [0003]); wherein the transparent shield component (1240) comprises a magnifying aspect (1265 and 1305; see [0069] and [0077]; see figures 13 and 16), wherein the magnifying aspect (1265 and 1305) consists of one or more of the following: magnifying glass (1265), light emitting diodes (1305), and a camera communicatively connected to a display screen for the purpose of providing magnification associated with viewing the procedure or feature of the patient (See [0069]) and to illuminate the patient, the site of the procedure, or other features such as the instruments being used during the procedure (see [0077]).
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 transparent shield component as disclosed by Danner as now modified by Jetter and to have included the magnifying aspect comprising a magnifying glass and light emitting diodes as taught by Zaugg in order to have provided an improved transparent shield component that would add the benefit of providing magnification associated with viewing the procedure or feature of the patient (See [0069]) and to illuminate the patient, the site of the procedure, or other features such as the instruments being used during the procedure (see [0077]) and the inclusion of the magnification aspect would allow the operator to maintain more distance from the patient while still being able to have a view of the patient and the workspace, thereby reducing the risk of infection.
In regards to claim 22, Danner as now modified by Jetter and Zaugg discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Zaugg further discloses wherein the magnifying aspect (1265 and 1305 of Zaugg) comprises light emitting diodes (1305 of Zaugg).
In regards to claim 23, Danner as now modified by Jetter and Zaugg discloses the invention as discussed above.
Danner as now modified by Zaugg further discloses wherein the magnifying aspect (1265 and 1305 of Zaugg) comprises magnifying glass (1265 of Zaugg).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danner in view of Jetter and Reiss et al. (US 2014/0349561 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Danner discloses A method for mitigating risk of transmission of an infectious disease (system as seen in figure 2 and described in [0028]) comprising:
obtaining a fully integrated shield (10; see [0028]; see figure 1) comprising:
a transparent and planar shield component (15; see [0030]; see figure 1; see [0032] in reference to 15 being planar);
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; 15, 20, and 150 work together to complete the intended function of maintaining aerosols within 100 and suctioning them from 100; and thus 15, 20, and 150 are considered “fully integrated”) for suctioning a space (100; see [0037]; see figure 1) adjacent said transparent shield component (15; see figure 1);
operatively attaching the fully integrated shield (10) to a seat (154; see [0028]);
selectively attached the transparent shield component to and selectively removing the transparent shield component from the seat (see [0030] in reference to 15 being disposable and replaceable between patients; thus disclosing selectively attaching and detaching the shield 15 after a patient has left and before a second patient enters the object in which the device is applied over)
positioning the fully integrated shield (10) such that no portion of the fully integrated shield (10) contacts a user (see [0029], [0034], and [0038] in reference to 17 and 19 resting on the chair or bed on either side of the patient’s head (not on the patient’s head), thus when 17 and 19 rest on the chair or bed, no contact is made between 10 and the individual; additionally see [0042-0044] that when the patient cannot be relied on for stability of the headpiece, 10 engages with 50 by 17 and 19 of 20 being inserted into 52 of 50 and does not contact the user’s head); and
wherein no portion of the shield (10) having the transparent shield component (15) and the chamber component (20) is worn on a head of the individual (See [0029], [0034], [0038], and [0042-0044] as discussed above).
Danner does not disclose the seat is in an aircraft, and
connecting the vacuum to a ventilation system of the aircraft.
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); 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 and to have utilized the system on an aircraft as 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 connecting the suctioning component 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 vacuums) connecting the vacuum (10) 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.
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