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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 17, “elongate” should read “elongated”.
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 3, 9, and 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, The term “substantially” in claims 3 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the L-shape and the rigidity and transparency of the side walls are rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 9, the “at least one opening” on the rear wall is rendered indefinite as it is unclear whether there is a third opening or one of the two openings mentioned in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15-21, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susec (US 20210353481 A1) (which has an effective filing date of 05/16/20 of provisional 63026018) in view of Hartigan, Jr. (US 5396904 A).
Regarding claim 1, Susec teaches a portable aerosol-protective apparatus with a shield comprising:
A rear wall defining two openings configured to receive a user’s hands (arm portals 34, 36; shown in annotated Fig. 1 below);
A top wall coupled to and extending forwardly from the rear wall (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); and
A pair of opposing side walls, (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below) wherein each side wall of the pair of opposing side walls is coupled to and extends forwardly from a respective side of the rear wall, wherein each side wall of the pair of opposing side walls is coupled to and extends downwardly from a respective side of the top wall;
Wherein the shield forms a partial enclosure defining a receiving space that is sufficient to receive the head-space end of a hospital or surgery bed having a patient lying thereon (lower flexible patient portal 76, patient entrance 78; shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Susec fails to teach a plurality of wheels and a height-adjustable support frame where the shield is mounted on.
However, Hartigan, Jr. teaches:
A plurality of wheels (wheels 86; shown in annotated Fig. 8 below);
A height-adjustable support frame that is movably supported on the plurality of wheels (frames 12a, bores 46, locking pin 48; shown in annotated Fig. 8 below); and
A shield mounted on the support frame (receptacle 16; shown in annotated Fig. 8 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
494
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the portable aerosol-protective apparatus of Susec with the plurality of wheels and height-adjustable support frame of Hartigan, Jr. in order to create an enclosure for a healthcare worker to operate and treat patients within the enclosure and protect themselves from spreadable aerosols and other harmful contaminants, while being able to transport it around for convenience and easy storage.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the top wall extending farther, in a forward direction, from the rear wall than at least a lower portion of the side walls which are also substantially L-shaped.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of the walls to any desired shape in order to conform with either a patient bed or any operating table for convenience.
Regarding claim 4, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches the shield further comprising a flexible front drape capable of being extended downwardly from a front portion of the top wall or from an upper portion of at least one side wall (lower flexible patient portal 76; shown in annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
447
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches at least one of the side walls defining an opening configured to receive negative pressure (“suction port 138 functions as a conduit…attached to the left side panel…to accommodate the attachment of suction tubing if negative pressure is desired or required”, paragraph [0060]; suction port, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 8, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the top wall defining at least one opening.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the top wall of the shield and create another opening for the arms of the healthcare worker and/or medical instruments and devices to perform surgeries, as it is usually done from the top going in the patient.
Regarding claim 9, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, the shield of Hartigan, Jr. teaches defining at least one opening configured to receive a medical instrument or component thereof (“an interior space…defining a plurality of apertures therein to facilitate admission of medical instruments”, claim 1, elasticized openings 80, Fig. 6 from Hartigan, Jr.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the portable apparatus of Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. to ensure that there is an opening for medical instruments to pass through in order to allow the healthcare worker to operate on and treat the patient with various instruments. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the opening compatible with medical devices and instruments that the healthcare worker is either holding or putting inside the enclosure, or make a separate opening just for the entrance of medical devices and instruments.
Regarding claim 13, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches the rear, top, and side walls of the shield being substantially rigid and transparent (“barrier is constued of a resilient material…plastic”, paragraph [0069], “transparent intubation barrier”, paragraph [0006]). Plastic material is rigid.
Regarding claim 15, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches a grommet positioned within each opening of the at least two openings, wherein each grommet defines at least one resilient flap (shown in annotated Fig. 6 below) that is configured to resiliently flex from a blocking position to an open position (“flexible sheet inserts 104, 106 collapses and molds around the provider’s hands, wrists and forearms”, paragraph [0051]; flexible sheet inserts 104, 106, operator arm portals 34, 36; shown in annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
561
642
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches the shield further comprising a front wall that is coupled to and extends downwardly from a forward edge of the top wall (downwardly extended front wall shown in annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
478
495
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not the two openings of the rear wall being elongated relative to a vertical axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the openings to any desired shape or size in order to conform to the arms of a healthcare worker or any medical instruments that pass through into the enclosure.
Regarding claim 18, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches the opening defined by the at least one side wall being configured for coupling to a negative pressure source (“accommodate the attachment of suction tubing”, paragraph [0060]; suction port 138), wherein the opening is positioned closer to the top wall than a lower edge of the at least one side wall (positioning of suction port shown in annotated Fig. 10 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
507
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches a tubular fitting positioned at the opening of the at least one side wall (shown in annotated Fig. 10 above).
Regarding claim 20, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 18, but does not teach the opening defined by the at least one side wall being positioned closer to the rear wall than a forward edge of the at least one side wall.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the filing date of the invention to further modify the portable apparatus of Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. and make the position of the opening closer to the rear wall, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Moving the opening closer or farther to the rear wall does nothing to change the functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 21, Susec teaches the rear wall having a lower edge and an upper edge, wherein the rear wall is angled (angled rear wall shown in annotated Fig. 1 below) relative to a vertical axis by at least 2 degrees so that the lower edge is rearwardly positioned relative to the upper edge. The lower edge being rearwardly positioned to the upper edge would be very slightly if it is at least 2 degrees.
PNG
media_image7.png
509
592
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches at least one sidewall further defining at least one arm opening that is configured to receive an arm of a clinician therethrough (arm portals 34, 36; shown in annotated Fig. 1 in below).
PNG
media_image8.png
500
490
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches a method of reducing aerosol exposure to a healthcare worker (“intubation barrier…reduces aerosol exposure and the transmission of disease between patient and healthcare provider”, paragraph [0006]) during an aerosol-generating medical procedure, the method comprising performing the medical procedure through the portable aerosol-protective apparatus of claim 1 (“box configured to enclose the patient’s head, face, and neck, thereby reducing the spread of infectious diseases while undergoing a medical procedure”, paragraph [0002]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. and further in view of Jolly et al. (US 20100096961 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the height-adjustable legs being spring-biased (the “spring-biased” configuration based on the Applicant’s disclosure is listed as a hydraulic system in paragraph [0053]. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret the spring-biased height-adjustable legs as a hydraulic system).
However, Jolly et al. teaches the support frame comprising height-adjustable legs, wherein the height-adjustable legs are movable about and between a collapsed configuration and an extended configuration and are spring-biased toward an extended configuration (“a hydraulic lift system allowing the height of the base to be raised and lowered as desired by the medical practitioner”, paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height-adjustable frames of the portable apparatus of Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. with the spring-biased hydraulic system of Jolly et al. for easier height-adjustment.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. and further in view of Trexler (US 4026286 A).
Regarding claim 22, Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach elastic sleeves wherein the proximal end connects to the shield and the distal end has an opening.
However, Trexler teaches a sleeve positioned over each of the two openings defined by the rear wall, wherein the sleeve comprises a proximal end and a distal end (sleeves 17, 18, shown in Fig. 1), wherein the proximal end is coupled to the shield, wherein the distal end defines an opening having an area, wherein the sleeve further comprises elastic that is configured to constrict the area of the opening of the distal end (“flexible sleeves”, Col. 3, line 53) (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
456
440
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susec in view of Hartigan, Jr. and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20150223892 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Hartigan, Jr. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the apparatus further comprising an actuator, a memory, and an input device.
However, Miller et al. teaches the apparatus further comprising:
An actuator that is configured to adjust a height of the shield (“linear actuators used in conjunction with a motor to vertically or laterally adjust the height of the first work platform”, paragraph [0132]; Fig. 2a);
A memory that is configured to store an instruction corresponding to at least one actuator position (“positions can be stored electronically for each user”, paragraph [0273]); and
An input device that is configured to receive an input from a user and, in response, cause the actuator to move to the at least one actuator position (“caregiver can manually and/or adjust the user preferences…such as: the height of the first work platform”, paragraph [0276]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the portable apparatus of Hartigan, Jr. with the actuator, memory, and input device of Miller et al. to control the heigh and position of the frames of the portable apparatus and allow healthcare worker to easily operate the adjustable frames, instead of manually adjusting it, making operations a lot more convenient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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 5712724233. 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.
/L.L.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791