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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 7 of claim 1, “cavity;” should apparently read –cavity; and--; at line 2 of claim 4, “or apex” should apparently read –or the apex--; at line 2 of claim 6, “wherein supply of a gas” should apparently read –wherein the supply of a gas--; and at line 2 of claim 12, “are in the form of” should apparently read --comprise-- or --are--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein supply of a gas through the input disperses gas downwards within the segregation cavity in a conical spray pattern” which appears to read on a method claim. Therefore, it is unclear how the structure of the barrier tent is being further limited.
Claim 9 recites “suction assisted removal of gases within the segregated patient cavity” which appears to read on a method claim. Therefore, it is unclear how the structure of the barrier tent is being further limited.
In claim 10, it is unclear if “suction is assisted” is the same as or different than “suction assisted removal of gases” recited in claim 9, from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 at line 2 recites the limitation "the base". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 at line 2 recites the limitation "the bottom". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Bonutti (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0060831). Regarding claim 1, Bonutti teaches a barrier tent (Fig. 14 and [0076]-[0081]) comprising: a canopy 502, at least a portion of the canopy (Fig. 14) being composed of flexible sheet material ([0081], [0065], [0071] discuss unfurling which would be a characteristic of a flexible material; [0097] discloses that the barrier tent “allows movement, twisting, sitting to standing” which would indicate a flexible material); a frame for supporting the canopy [0076]; the canopy and frame being configured such that an internal surface of the canopy defines at least a portion of a patient segregation cavity to enclose a patient's head and at least a portion of the patient's body within the patient segregation cavity (Abstract, [0076]); and a gas input 512 extending through the canopy (Fig. 14), the gas input 512 being positioned at a location configured such that supply of a gas through the input limits movement of aerosolised particles generated by or adjacent the patient toward the internal surface of the canopy (Fig. 14 and [0077]).
Regarding claim 2, the frame comprises a plurality of flexible elongate members ([0076] – “poles that may have inflatable rod and pistons for adjusting the height of the tent”).
Regarding claim 3, the segregation cavity has an upper portion or an apex that attaches to hook 504 (Fig. 14 and [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, the gas input 512 is located in or adjacent the upper portion or the apex (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7, the barrier tent further comprises one or more semi-sealed apertures 520,522 extending through the cavity to allow access to the patient (Fig. 14 and [0078]).
Regarding claim 8, the one or more semi-sealed apertures comprise an aperture with a flap or other sheet material covering the aperture (Fig. 14 and [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, the barrier tent further comprises suction assisted removal of gases within the segregated patient cavity via drain system ([0080], [0059], [0098] and Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 10, suction is assisted through suction elements 160,162 located at the base of the tent (Fig. 14, [0059] and [0080]).
Regarding claim 11, the suction elements are perforated (in order to allow the fluids from surgery to drain through the tubing and into the collection retainer 162; [0080], [0063], [0059] and Fig. 14; also see “mesh” disclosed at [0080], which is added to the drain, wherein a mesh is a perforated material).
Regarding claim 12, the suction elements comprise tubes/drains 160 extending along a portion of the base (Fig. 14 and [0059], [0063], [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, the barrier tent further includes a impermeable base sheet extending across the bottom of the barrier tent (the tent includes a base sheet extending across the bottom of the barrier as shown in Fig. 14; the sheet is considered to be impermeable as it is constructed to maintain a positive pressure and sterile surgical environment ([0077] and [0081]).
Regarding claim 14, the tent further comprises an adhesive to removably connect the tent to a bed ([0062] - “adhesive backed transparent panel” is capable of removably connecting the tent to a bed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0060831). Regarding claim 6, while Bonutti discloses that the supply of gas through the input 512 disperses gas downwards within the segregation cavity (Fig. 14, [0076] and [0077]), Bonutti fails to disclose that the dispersion creates a conical spray pattern. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that forcing of a positive pressure from the air handler 510 and through the vent 512 would create a dispersion of a conical spray pattern as air forced through an opening/vent will diverge when emerging, creating a conical spray pattern.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0060831) in view of Paschal, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0029955). Regarding claim 5, Bonutti teaches a gas input extending through the canopy for supplying a gas that is directed towards the patient (Fig. 14), however Bonutti fails to disclose explicitly that the input comprises a full cone spray nozzle. Paschal, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Paschal) teaches a mobile patient isolation pod, as likewise disclosed by Bonutti, wherein the gas input comprises a cone-shaped nozzle/valve 22 (Fig. 4 and [0045]) which serves to provide controlled dispersion of air within the isolation chamber [0045]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a cone-shaped valve/gas input as taught by Paschal, into a gas input for dispersing positive pressure to a patient enclosure as suggested by Bonutti, as Bonutti recognizes the need to provide directionality of air flow towards the patient as shown and discussed in Fig. 14, and Paschal teaches that a cone-shaped valve/nozzle provides controlled directionality to the air flow/ventilation in the patient isolation chamber ([0045]-[0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791