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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the objection of Claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the objection of Claims 14-16, 18, & 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 14-16, 18, & 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 1 of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A semi-rigid sheet is a sheet that must have flexibility which is disclosed by the flexible dome of O'Connor. The fasteners presented in the claim does not give the covering any additional structural rigidity, and is only meant to mate the semi-rigid sheets such that they support each other. The base segment of the enclosure disclosed in O’Connor is reasonably considered part of the structure and is used to support the flexible dome creating the self-supporting structure of claim 1. The device of O’Connor is also made of plastic, which can be interpreted as having enough rigidity to maintain its self after initial inflation.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The specification describes the numerical reference 101 as a dome, the definition of a dome for one of ordinary skill in the art is a rounded vault forming the roof of a building or structure. Examiner reasonably interprets the 101 to have the convex curved surfaces generally attributed to a dome and would therefore teach the limitations of claim 14. Examiner also interprets said pointed out seam to be as negligible of a view obstruction as the seam displayed in applicants’ figure 2 item 20 and therefore still cover the limitation pointed out by applicant.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that the flap drapes 38 of Breegi not being configured to seal is untrue as evidenced by paragraph 11 of Breegi. Paragraph 11 states “the device is capable of sealing around the perimeter of a partially or fully introduced object” and since the drape flaps are coupled to the to the base of the apparatus, it can be reasonably interpreted that the flap drapes aid in the sealing of the surgical field. It can also be reasonably interpreted that any structure that can seal, can also withstand a predetermined negative operating pressure.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner interprets the Zipper 30 having overlapping components commonly teeth which once the spacer (slider) is moved between them, liquid is able to go in and out to the enclosure.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments regarding the apparatus of Breegi not being capable of continuous extraction of gas is incorrect. Examiner reasonably interprets the ability "to suction air out" taught in paragraph 42 as the tube disclosed in the same paragraph as being capable of continuous suction of air which would teach the limitations of the claim. Regarding the argument that the canopy operates under a positive air pressure is refuted utilizing paragraph 48 which discloses, “ there can be positive air pressure maintained through a pressurized air-canister connected to the controlled flow access tubes, or negative pressure using a vacuum device”. Breegi clearly states that the apparatus can operate at both positive and negative pressure.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 14, 15, & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by US 2002/0045796 hereinafter O'Connor.
In regards to Claim 1: A covering for a body part of a patient, comprising: a plurality of transparent semi-rigid sheet segments (O’Connor, Paragraph 30; Figure 1 Item 101 & 102; A semi-rigid sheet is a sheet that must have flexibility); and
a fastener configured to connect the plurality of transparent semi-rigid sheet segments together such that the sheet segments support each other to form a self-supporting structure suitable for covering the body part of a patient (O’Connor, Paragraph 40; Figure 1 Items 121 & 122; The fasteners presented in the claim does not give the covering any additional structural rigidity, and is only meant to mate the semi-rigid sheets such that they support each other. The device of O’Connor is also made of plastic, which can be interpreted as having enough rigidity to maintain its self after initial inflation).
In regards to Claim 2: A covering according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprise a plurality of openings for [[the]] insertion of arms into an inside of the covering (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033) (O’Connor, Figure 1 Item 111 & 112),
wherein the rigidity of the structure is sufficient for [[the]] a dome structure to, when an arm is inserted into [[the]] a chamber through an opening, resist movement thereby minimizing or preventing expulsion of a gas within the covering to an outside (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033) (O’Connor, Figure 1 Item 113).
In regards to Claim 8: The covering of claim 2, wherein at least one of the openings is covered by a flexible seal, the flexible seal comprising an elastically deformable seal opening configured to admit a human arm through the seal opening (O’Connor, Figure 1 Items 111 & 110) (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033).
In regards to Claim 14: A covering for a body part of a patient, comprising:
a structure for covering a patient's body part comprising a plurality of semi-rigid sheet segments (O’Connor, Paragraph 30; Figure 1 Item 101 & 102) and connected to each other along [[joins]] joints (O’Connor, Paragraph 122; Figure 1 Item 122) and configured to form a chamber between the structure and a surface upon which the structure rests and/or the patient (O’Connor, Paragraph 31), wherein:
the covering comprises a plurality of openings for insertion of arms into the chamber (O’Connor, Paragraph 33; Figure 1 Item 111); and
one or more semi-rigid sheet segments of the plurality of semi-rigid sheet segments comprising said plurality of openings curves convexly outwardly so as to provide a view that is not obstructed by the joints between the plurality of semi-rigid sheet segments into the chamber (O’Connor, Paragraph 30; Figure 1 Item 101; The specification describes the numerical reference 101 as a dome, the definition of a dome for one of ordinary skill in the art is a rounded vault forming the roof of a building or structure. Examiner reasonably interprets the 101 to have the convex curved surfaces generally attributed to a dome. Examiner also interprets said pointed out seam to be as negligible of a view obstruction as the seam displayed in applicants’ figure 2 item 20).
In regards to Claim 15: wherein the plurality of semi-rigid sheet segments comprise complimentary shapes configured to provide [[the]] a self- supporting dome shape (O’Connor, Figure 1 Item 101; Paragraph 0030), with seams connecting the sheets positioned such that they are out of [[the]] line of sight of a human of average height manipulating a patient (O’Connor, Figure 1 Item 122), wherein the patient is positioned horizontally at a height between 60 and 100 cm above ground (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033; The common height of a surgical table falls between 64 and 77cm which falls within the range given.).
In regards to Claim 21: A set of semi-rigid sheets and fasteners, assemblable into a covering according to claim 1, by connecting the sheets using the fasteners (O’Connor, Figure 1 Items 121, 102, 101).
Claim(s) 16-20 & 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0074268 hereinafter Breegi.
In regards to Claim 16: A covering for a body part of a patient, comprising:
a substantially dome shaped structure for covering a patient's body part and forming configured to form a chamber between the dome and a surface and/or patient (Breegi, Figure 4 Items 50 & 73), the structure comprising edges that are, in use, to be placed adjacent to part of [[a]] the patient's anatomy or a surface upon which [[a]] the patient rests (Breegi, Paragraph 17);
wherein at least one of the edges comprises a pliable skirt for providing continuous contact between a base of the dome and a surface and/or a body part of a patient (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 38), and
wherein, under a predetermined negative operating pressure, the pliable skirt is configured to seal an edge of the covering (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 38; Paragraph 11; Examiner interprets the Skirt described in Breegi would reasonably have the same effect as they are described to have the same structural composition).
In regards to Claim 17: The covering of claim 16 wherein the skirt comprises accessible portions which are openable and closable to allow insertion of items into the chamber (Breegi, Figure 4 Items 30 & 45) (Breegi, Paragraph 0041).
In regards to Claim 18: A covering for a body part of a patient, comprising;
a substantially dome shaped structure for covering a patient's body part and configured to form a chamber between the dome and a surface and/or patient; wherein: (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 50 & 73),
the covering comprises a plurality of overlapping components, and (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 30; Paragraph 0041),
(Breegi, Figure 4 Item 30; Paragraph 0041).
In regards to Claim 19: The covering of claim 18, further comprising a pliable skirt arranged along at least one edge of the covering, the skirt overlapping a sheet material forming the edge and connected to the sheet material using a spacer or spacers that allow ingress of liquid between the sheet material (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 30) (Breegi, Paragraph 0041).
In regards to Claim 20: wherein the spacer or spacers comprise a woven fluid permeable material (Breegi, Paragraph 0041; Zippers or hook and loop fasteners are fluid permeable woven materials).
In regards to Claim 22: A safety apparatus comprising;
a substantially dome shaped covering for covering a patient's body part and configured to form a chamber between the dome and a surface and/or patient (Breegi, Figure 4 Items 50 & 73),
the covering comprising a plurality of openings for insertion of arms into the chamber (Breegi, Figure 4 Items 43, 29, 52, &49); and
an extraction means configured to connect to the chamber and configured to continuously extract gas from the chamber at a rate that creates an inflow of gas through the openings towards the extraction means, thereby preventing gas escaping from the chamber through the openings (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 31, 54, 55 &70; Paragraph 43 & 42).
In regards to Claim 23: wherein the extraction means is in fluid communication with the chamber at two positions. (Breegi, Figure 4 Item 28, 31, 54, 55, & 70; Paragraphs 0043 & 0042)
In regards to Claim 24: wherein the extraction means comprises a tube having a first end and a second end, wherein the tube is in fluid communication with the chamber at the first end and connected to a pump at the second end (Breegi, Figure 17 Item 31 & 70)
In regards to Claim 25: wherein the extraction means further comprises a gas filter positioned between the chamber and the pump, for filtering the gas extracted from the chamber (Breegi, Figure 17 Item 31 & 70; Paragraph 0042).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of US 2016/0137374 hereinafter Borsch.
In regards to Claim 3: O’Connor teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the plurality of transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprise a material having a Flexural modulus of between 400 MPa and 7500 MPa.
Borsch teaches wherein the plurality of transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprise a material having a Flexural modulus of between 400 MPa and 7500 MPa. (Borsch, Paragraph 0045) (Borsch, Paragraph 0083; Typical contents for various embodiments of the inventive container may include medical devices and products)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the rigidity properties of the dome container taught in Borsch to the environmental control device of O’Connor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flexural modulus which achieves the recognized result of versatility of the device such as where it can be deployed on body or how it can be stored therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of US 6461290 hereinafter Reichman.
In regards to Claim 4: O’Connor teaches all of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments have a thickness of between 0.2 mm and 3.0 mm.
Reichman teaches wherein the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments have a thickness of between 0.2 mm and 3.0 mm. (Reichman, Claim 41; the enclosure sheet being made of plastic 20 mil. or less thick)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the parameters for thickness taught in Reichman to the environmental control device of O’Connor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is thickness which achieves the recognized result of ensuring the ability of the dome to contain the area within while also being flexible enough to encourage versatility therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of US 4,026,286 hereinafter Trexler.
In regards to Claim 5: O’Connor teaches all of Claims 1 & 2, but does not teach wherein the opening has a widest dimension of between 150mm and 250mm.
Trexler teaches wherein the opening has a widest dimension of between 150mm and 250mm (Trexler, Column 10 Lines 25 – 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the dimensional diameters of openings taught be Trexler to the environmental control device of O’Connor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is area which achieves the recognized result of keeping the environment inside the dome isolated while a hand reaches inside to perform treatment therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
In regards to Claim 6: O’Connor teaches all of Claims 1 & 2, but does not teach wherein the total open area of each opening in a first state is 10 cm2, wherein in the first state no arm is inserted into the chamber and wherein the total open area is the area which provides fluid communication between the inside and outside of the chamber.
Trexler teaches wherein the total open area of each opening in a first state is 10 cm2, wherein in the first state no arm is inserted into the chamber and wherein the total open area is the area which provides fluid communication between the inside and outside of the chamber (Trexler, Column 10 Lines 25 – 30; Because of the collapsable openings described in O’Connor, it can be implied that the openings must be less that the maximum when they are not expanded around an arm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the dimensional diameter of openings taught by Trexler to the environmental control device of O’Connor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is area which achieves the recognized result of ensuring the containment within the dome when the dome is not breached by a hand therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
In regards to Claim 7: O’Connor teaches all of claims 1 & 2, but does not teach wherein the total open area of an opening in a second state is a maximum of 25 cm2, wherein in the second state all openings have arms inserted into the chamber and wherein the total open area is the area which provides fluid communication between the inside and outside of the chamber.
Trexler teaches wherein the total open area of an opening in a second state is a maximum of 25 cm2, wherein in the second state all openings have arms inserted into the chamber and wherein the total open area is the area which provides fluid communication between the inside and outside of the chamber. (Trexler, Column 10 Lines 25 – 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add dimensional diameter of openings taught by Trexler to the environmental control device of O’Connor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is area which achieves the recognized result of keeping the environment inside the dome isolated while a hand reaches inside to perform treatment therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
In regards to Claim 9: O’Connor teaches of Claims 1, 2, 8 and wherein the flexible seal and the seal opening is configured to deform around an inserted arm to create a maximum total opening area around the arm through the seal opening for fluid communication between the inside and the outside of the chamber (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033) (O’Connor, Figure 1 item 110), but does not teach wherein the flexible seal and the seal opening is configured to create a maximum total opening area of less than or equal to 25 cm2.
Trexler teaches wherein the flexible seal and the seal opening is configured to create a maximum total opening area of less than or equal to 25 cm2. (Trexler, Column 10 Lines 25 – 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add dimensional diameter of openings taught by Trexler to the environmental control device of O’Connor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is area which achieves the recognized result of keeping the environment inside the dome isolated while a hand reaches inside to perform treatment therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
Claim(s) 10, 11, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of Breegi.
In regards to Claim 10: O’Connor teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein at least one of the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprises a bougie opening which near an apex of the cover.
Breegi teaches wherein at least one of the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprises a bougie opening which near an apex of the cover (Breegi, Figure 17 Item 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the bougie opening taught by Breegi with the environmental control device of O’Connor, the motivation being to provide a bougie opening to allow tubes to enter the enclosure to aid in treatment.
In regards to Claim 11: O’Connor teaches all of Claims 1 & 2, but does not teach wherein at least one of the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments further comprises a reinforcing means for increasing the stiffness of the dome in a direction orthogonal to an axis.
Breegi teaches wherein at least one of the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments further comprises a reinforcing means for increasing the stiffness of the dome in a direction orthogonal to an axis. (Breegi, Figure 2 (Frame itself); Figure 4 (frame built in to enclosure)) (Breegi, Paragraph 0013))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the frame taught by Breegi to the environmental control unit of O’Connor, the motivation being to provide an additional level of stability to the enclosure to ensure it retains structural integrity.
In regards to Claim 13: O’Connor teaches all of Claim 1, but does not teach w wherein at least one of the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprises an arched edge for permitting a patient's body part to extend between an inside and an outside of the covering.
Breegi teaches wherein at least one of the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments comprises an arched edge for permitting a patient's body part to extend between an inside and an outside of the covering (Breegi, Figures 17, 18, & 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the size dimensions of the whole device taught in Breegi to the environmental control device of O’Connor, the motivation being to provide a more transportable device to be used in the field.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Connor in view of US 4,736,762 hereinafter Wayman.
In regards to Claim 12: O’Connor teaches all of Claim 1, but does teach wherein the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments, when not fastened to each other, are rollable into a tubular shape.
Wayman teaches wherein the transparent semi-rigid sheet segments, when not fastened to each other, are rollable into a tubular shape. (Wayman, Column 1 Lines 50 – 53)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add ability to roll the containment dome taught in Wayman to the environmental control device of O’Connor, the motivation being to provide a method of easy storage and transportation of the device.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breegi in view of US 2006/0069418 hereinafter Schock.
In regards to Claim 26: Breegi teaches all of Claim 22, but does not teach wherein the extraction means is configured to extract gas from the chamber at a rate of at least 400 L/min.
Schock teaches wherein the extraction means is configured to extract gas from the chamber at a rate of at least 400 L/min (Schock, paragraph 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the air extraction rate taught in Schock to the environmental containment device of Breegi, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flow rate which achieves the recognized result of ensuring a constant extraction of air form the device to keep all airborne toxins away from patient therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It is noted that the applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed range.
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 NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights