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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-5, 7-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,241,653 (Gauger et al., hereinafter Gauger).
In regards to claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 13 Gauger discloses an isolation apparatus (title and abstract; see figures 1-8; column 1, line 61-column 7, line 55). The device (10) includes the following components:
an enclosure (figures 1-5; element 12) comprised of a pathogen impermeable material compatible with one or more imaging systems (enclosure is transparent and made of plastic materials, which makes it a pathogen impermeable material that is compatible with imaging systems; column 3, lines 6-39); and
an air filtration system (70 blower unit with filter) coupled to the enclosure (figures 6-7, column 7, lines 7-50).
Gauger only discloses one filter with a blower (which can be considered as an air pump) for either an inlet or outlet depending on desired use. However, Gauger does state that having an inlet filter coupled to the head end of the enclosure filters environmental air to supply the patient with clean air in the enclosure while including the filter at the foot end avoids contamination of the environment by filtering the air before exhausting the air to the environment (column 7, lines 7-50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify air filtration system of the device of Gauger to include an inlet having a first filter to supply filtered air to an interior of the enclosure and an outlet having a second filter to exhaust filtered air to an exterior of the enclosure in order to filter the air entering and the air leaving the enclosure of contaminants.
In regards to claim 2, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gauger further shows that the enclosure (figures 1-5, element 12; column 3, line 6-column 7, line 7) includes:
a base (base mat assembly 32; figures 3-5);
a first end wall coupled to a first end of the base (side with 26 in figures 1 and 2);
a second end wall coupled to a second end of the base (side with 28 in figures 1 and 2); and
a cover (fabric/material (elements 14 and 16 of figures 1-5) of enclosure that encloses central space) coupled to a first side of the base, a second side of the base, the first end wall and the second end wall for substantially enclosing a patient therein between the base, the first end wall, and the second end wall for use on a medical imaging system (enclosure is transparent so can be used with a medical imaging system).
In regards to claim 3, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 2. Gauger shows in figures 3-5 that the there is a pad (46 – flexible sheet) positioned on top of the base.
In regards to claim 4, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Gauger states that the enclosure is made of flexible plastic (column 3, lines 18-38).
In regards to claim 5, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Gauger discloses the presence of semi-rigid support bands (18, 20, 22, and 24) that support the enclosure (abstract; column 3, lines 18-64).
In regards to claim 7, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition. Due to the nature of the enclosure and the lack of specificity about what medical imaging system is being used, the enclosure would be configured to fit into a bore of a medical imaging system.
In regards to claim 8, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 2. In addition, as shown in figures 1-5, the base, first end wall, the second end wall, and the cover are mated with one another in a sealed configuration.
In regards to claim 10, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gauger does not show a semi-cylindrical shape but instead shows a cylindrical shaped enclosure. However, changes in shape are not considered inventive and would be considered a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) Changes in shape).
In regards to claim 15, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 2 In addition, Gauger shows the presence of built-in gloves (60) formed along the length of the cover in figures 2-5 (column 6, lines 6-27).
In regards to claim 16, Gauger discloses an isolation system (title and abstract; see figures 1-8; column 1, line 61-column 7, line 55). The system (10) includes the following components:
an enclosure (figures 1-5; element 12) comprised of a pathogen impermeable material compatible with one or more imaging systems (enclosure is transparent and made of plastic materials, which makes it a pathogen impermeable material that is compatible with imaging systems; column 3, lines 6-39);
the enclosure (figures 1-5, element 12; column 3, line 6-column 7, line 7) includes:
a base (base mat assembly 32; figures 3-5);
a first end wall coupled to a first end of the base (side with 26 in figures 1 and 2);
a second end wall coupled to a second end of the base (side with 28 in figures 1 and 2); and
a cover (fabric/material (elements 14 and 16 of figures 1-5) of enclosure that encloses central space) coupled to a first side of the base, a second side of the base, the first end wall and the second end wall for substantially enclosing a patient therein between the base, the first end wall, and the second end wall for use on a medical imaging system (enclosure is transparent so can be used with a medical imaging system);
and
an air filtration system (70 blower unit with filter) coupled to the enclosure (figures 6-7, column 7, lines 7-50).
Gauger only discloses one filter with a blower (which can be considered as an air pump) for either an inlet or outlet depending on desired use. However, Gauger does state that having an inlet filter coupled to the head end of the enclosure filters environmental air to supply the patient with clean air in the enclosure while including the filter at the foot end avoids contamination of the environment by filtering the air before exhausting the air to the environment (column 7, lines 7-50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify air filtration system of the device of Gauger to include an inlet having a first filter to supply filtered air to an interior of the enclosure and an outlet having a second filter to exhaust filtered air to an exterior of the enclosure in order to filter the air entering and the air leaving the enclosure of contaminants.
In regards to claim 18 and 20, Gauger discloses an isolation system (title and abstract; see figures 1-8; column 1, line 61-column 7, line 55). The system (10) includes the following components:
an enclosure having a head enclosure and body enclosure (figures 1-5; element 12; one part of the enclosure from 16a to first endwall (26) is the head enclosure and 16a to second endwall (28) is the body enclosure) comprised of a pathogen impermeable material compatible with one or more imaging systems (enclosure is transparent and made of plastic materials, which makes it a pathogen impermeable material that is compatible with imaging systems; column 3, lines 6-39); and
an air filtration system (70 blower unit with filter) coupled to the enclosure (figures 6-7, column 7, lines 7-50).
Gauger only discloses one filter with a blower (which can be considered as an air pump) for either an inlet or outlet depending on desired use. However, Gauger does state that having an inlet filter coupled to the head end of the enclosure filters environmental air to supply the patient with clean air in the enclosure while including the filter at the foot end avoids contamination of the environment by filtering the air before exhausting the air to the environment (column 7, lines 7-50). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify air filtration system of the device of Gauger to include an inlet having a first filter to supply filtered air to an interior of the enclosure and an outlet having a second filter to exhaust filtered air to an exterior of the enclosure as taught by Gauger in order to filter the air entering and the air leaving the enclosure of contaminants.
In regards to claim 19, Gauger disclose the limitations of claim 18. In addition, Gauger shows the presence of built-in gloves (60) formed along the length of the cover in figures 2-5 (column 6, lines 6-27). These gloves can be considered as sleeve members extending from the body enclosure and would be able to accommodate a patient’s arms.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,241,653 (Gauger et al., hereinafter Gauger) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view US 6,969,346 (Perlatti).
In regards to claim 6, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not state the presence of rigid material. In a related area, Perlatti discloses a patient isolation unit (isolation chamber 100, Fig. 5), comprising:
an enclosure (flexible enclosure 102, Fig. 5) comprised of a pathogen impermeable material compatible with one or more imaging systems (col.7, lines 1-3 , as enclosure 102 is made from the same material as enclosure 12; see also col. 3, lines 15-17, as enclosure 12 is made of PVC; see also Applicant's specification at [32], [34], and [48], as PVC is listed among materials suitable for the disclosed enclosure and the enclosure of Perlatti may be made from materials that are non-metallic and are not dense, thereby yielding them compatible with one or more imaging systems as described by Applicant); and
an air filtration system coupled to the enclosure (HEPA vacuum 150, inlet (144) and hose (148); Fig. 6; see also col. 9, lines 31-34 and 41-49);
wherein the enclosure is made of a rigid material (col. 7, line 67-col. 8, line 6, as the plurality of ribs maintain structure of the enclosure).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosure in the device of Gauger to include rigid material as taught by Perlatti in order to maintain the structure of the enclosure.
In regards to claim 17, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 16 but does not state the presence of a cart to provide transport of the system to an imaging system. In a related area, Perlatti discloses the use of a cart to transport an isolation chamber (col. 6, lines 53-57, as the isolation chamber is configured for use with a stretcher with railings, such as a hospital-type stretcher. Such a stretcher constitutes a cart capable of providing transport.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gauger to include a cart as taught by Perlatti in order to transport the isolation chamber.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,241,653 (Gauger et al., hereinafter Gauger) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 8,245,713 (Paschal, Jr et al., hereinafter Paschal).
In regards to claim 14, Gauger discloses the limitations of claim 13 but does not state that the air pump is battery powered.
In a related area, Paschal discloses a patient isolation unit (emergency personal isolation and containment (EPIC) pod 10; Fig. 2) comprising:
an enclosure (elongated tube 12; Fig. 2) comprised of a pathogen impermeable material (air impervious polymeric sheet material 11; col. 4, lines 51-55) compatible with one or more imaging systems (col. 4, lines 51-61, as sheet material 11 is transparent to diagnostic instrumentalities including X-Ray, MRI, ultrasound, etc.); and
an air filtration system coupled to the enclosure (two Heimlich valves 22; col. 5, lines 63-67; see also Figures 2 and 3);
wherein the air filtration system includes an inlet to supply filtered air to an interior of the enclosure (valve 22 positioned at the head end of the pod; col. 5, lines 64-67; see also Figures 2 and 3) and an outlet to exhaust filtered air to an exterior of the enclosure (valve 22 at the foot end; col. 5, lines 64-67).
wherein the air filtration system further includes an air pump coupled to the enclosure (col. 6, lines 3-6, as blower 24 comprises a motor driven pump) and wherein the air pump is battery powered (col. 6, lines 6-7, as the pump may be battery powered).
Paschal states that the use of batteries allows for field use of the blower (column 6, lines 6-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gauger to have the air pump be battery powered, as taught by Paschal, to allow for field use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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 Marmor 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights