DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 1 April 2026. Claims 1-
15 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 6, 7,
9, 10 and a 12-14, as well as the addition of claim 15.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 recites “wherein the frame extends within the cavity”. While paragraph [0058] of the instant publication discloses the frame, and specifically that the frame “supports the canopy” and defines “an interior space…that is located near and around the apex,” this does not support a recitation claiming “wherein the frame extends within the cavity”. And while paragraph [0077] of the instant publication discloses that the “frame may be integral with the canopy and separate from the canopy,” this recitation does not support claim 15 stating “wherein the frame extends within the cavity”.
5. 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.
6. Claim 5 is 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.
7. Claim 5 recites “a full cone spray nozzle”. It is unclear, in this recitation, if “full cone nozzle” implies some type of structure to the nozzle or if “full cone spray” applies to a spray pattern that emanates from a nozzle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 elements 160,162 configured to assist removal of gases within the segregated patient cavity via drain system ([0080], [0059], and Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 10, the suction elements 160,162 are located at a 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 a 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
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0060831) in view of Coelho et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,759,171). Regarding claim 5, Bonutti teaches a gas input extending through the canopy for supplying a gas/thrombin mist that is directed towards the incision area of the patient (Fig. 14 and [0077]), however Bonutti fails to disclose explicitly that the input comprises a full cone spray nozzle. Coelho et al. (hereinafter Coelho) teaches a mechanism for uniformly distributing a substance/gas over a surgical area (col. 1, lines 36-60), as likewise disclosed by Bonutti, wherein the gas input comprises a spray nozzle which sends an atomized mist into a diverging conical pattern (interpreted as a “full cone spray nozzle”) to ensure uniform distribution of thrombin, for instance, on the surgical site (col. 2, lines 3-29) within a specific target region (col. 2, lines 13-17). 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 spray nozzle which produces a diverging conical pattern as taught by Coelho, into a gas input for directing thrombin towards an incision area of the patient as suggested by Bonutti, as Bonutti recognizes the need to provide directionality of air flow and substances towards the patient incision area, such as thrombin [0077], and Coelho teaches that a spray nozzle producing a diverging conical pattern provides controlled directionality and uniform distribution of thrombin on a targeted surgical area (col. 1, lines 36-60; and col. 2, lines 3-29).
Regarding claim 6, Bonutti teaches a gas input extending through the canopy for supplying a gas/thrombin mist that is directed downward towards the incision area of the patient (Fig. 14 and [0077]), however Bonutti fails to disclose explicitly that the supply of gas disperses in a conical spray pattern. Coelho et al. (hereinafter Coelho) teaches a mechanism for uniformly distributing a substance/gas over a surgical area (col. 1, lines 36-60), as likewise disclosed by Bonutti, wherein the gas input comprises a spray nozzle which sends an atomized mist into a diverging conical pattern to ensure uniform distribution of thrombin, for instance, on the surgical site (col. 2, lines 3-29) within a specific target region (col. 2, lines 13-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disperse the gas/substances/thrombin directed towards the incision area of the patient as taught by Bonutti, in a conical spray pattern as suggested by Coelho, as Bonutti recognizes the need to provide directionality of air flow and substances towards the patient incision area, such as thrombin [0077], and Coelho teaches that producing a diverging conical pattern provides controlled directionality and uniform distribution of thrombin on a targeted surgical area (col. 1, lines 36-60; and col. 2, lines 3-29).
14. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonutti (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0060831) in view of Reichman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,461,290). Regarding claim 15, Bonutti teaches that a frame comprises a plurality of flexible elongate members, for suspending the canopy [0076], however Bonutti fails to disclose explicitly that the frame extends within the canopy. Reichman et al. (hereinafter Reichman) teaches a patient care enclosure comprising a portable, collapsible frame and canopy/housing (see Fig. 1, Abstract), wherein the frame, comprised of arcuate stays/ribs 79) extends within the canopy to erect the housing (col. 8, lines 14-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the positioning poles/pistons for adjusting the height of the height of the tent/canopy as taught by Bonutti, within the tent/canopy as suggested by Reichman, as Bonutti recognizes adjustment of the drape/canopy to accommodate size and dimensions of the patient/workspace and Reichman teaches extending a frame within a canopy to provide an area to use/place the patient.
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, new grounds of rejection are presented above to claim 5.
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Bonutti (‘831) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant contends that Bunotti “fails to disclose, teach or suggest configuring a gas input to limit aerosol contact with the interior surface of the canopy”. However, this argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “configuring a gas input to limit aerosol contact with the interior surface of the canopy”) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites “…the gas input being positioned at allocation 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”, which differs from configuring a gas input to limit aerosol contact with the interior surface of the canopy.
Further Applicant contends that the system of Bunotti instead promotes the flow of the air onto the interior surface of the canopy. The gas input 512 of Bunotti produces flow towards the incision area of the patient as shown in Fig. 14 and described at [0077], which meets the interpretation of claim 1 limitations as the flow directed towards the incision area of the patient would limit movement of particles generated by the patient (“towards the internal surface of the cavity”) due to the flow directing particles towards the patient. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Bonutti (‘831) has been maintained.
17. Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bonutti (‘831) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bonutti (‘831) in view of Coelho (‘171); see rejection supra.
18. Applicant’s arguments filed 1 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bonutti (‘831) in view of Paschal (‘955) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Bonutti (‘831) in view of Coelho (‘171); see rejection supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Gorgen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0242979).
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
Prosecution Insights