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 § 102
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, 3, 5, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (US 5620407 A).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a containment device (containment system 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
A substantially transparent structure (“at least a portion and preferably all of cover is made of a transparent material”, Col. 5, lines 50-51) having a top, an open bottom and a plurality of sidewalls extending from the top to the bottom (“cover 14 has an open bottom 32 and side and end walls 34, 36 respectively, and a closed top 38”, Col. 5, lines 62-63; cover 14, open bottom 32, side walls 34, end walls 36, Fig. 1, Fig. 2) to define an interior for receiving a patient’s head (enclosed head, Fig. 5), the open bottom having bottom edges aligned in a plane to form a planar base (bottom 32, supporting top 18, inside rim 30, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 5),
Wherein a first sidewall has a pair of access openings for an operator’s hands (openings 52, Fig. 2), and the structure has an open end opposite the first sidewall, the open end sized to accommodate at least a portion of the patient’s upper body (open end to fit upper body of patient, Fig. 5) when in use, and
PNG
media_image1.png
205
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the top includes a first transparent panel extending from the first sidewall towards the open end at an upward incline relative to the plane of the base (transparent cover 14 at an incline relative to base shown in Fig. 1), the first transparent panel providing the operator with an undistorted and unobstructed view of the patient’s head.
PNG
media_image2.png
271
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chang teaches the top including a second transparent panel extending from the first transparent panel towards the open end at a downward incline relative to the plane of the base, and a zone where the first and second transparent panels meet being at a maximum height of the structure (first panel at upward incline and second panel at downward incline in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
271
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Chang teaches the access openings provided in at least two of the sidewalls (openings 52 on sidewalls, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches a base tray attached to the base, the base tray having a depth to accommodate a mattress (“a raised rim 30, preferably rounded so that body can be easily slid onto the table”, Col. 5, lines 43-44; raised rim 30, Fig. 1) and having a bottom plate shaped to extend beneath the mattress (“side and end walls 34, 36, meet at right angular corners, following the contour of autopsy table…Sidewalls 34 preferably fit just inside rim 30 along the side edges of the table”, Col. 5 lines 63-67, Col. 6, line 1; side wall 34, end wall 36, rim 30, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Chang teaches an access doorway covered by an access flap in one of the sidewalls adjacent the open bottom (“one or more access doors 58 are provided in cover 14 such that surgical tools and materials needed for medical, forensic or embalming procedures may be passed into compartment and other materials passed out”, Col. 6, lines 46-50; access door 58, cover 14, Fig. 3), the access doorway sized to allow a tubing to pass therethrough with the flap opening to uncover the access doorway as the containment device is placed over the head of the patient (“when cover 14 envelopes the head of the cadaver, a door 58H is provided in end wall 36 adjacent the head”, Col. 6, lines 50-52; cover 14, access door 58H, Fig. 3), without disconnecting the tubing when placing the containment device over the patient’s head.
Regarding claim 13, Chang teaches a suction port extending from the structure for operatively extracting air from the interior of the structure (“an exhaust duct with a fan evacuates air from air chamber”, Col. 5, lines 32-33; exhaust duct 22 (not shown), air chamber 16, Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Susec (US 20210353481 A1) (which has an effective filing date of 05/16/2020 of provisional 63026018).
Regarding claim 1, Susec teaches a containment device (intubation barrier 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
A substantially transparent structure (“transparent intubation barrier”, paragraph [0006]) having a top, an open bottom and a plurality of sidewalls (top, open bottom, and side walls shown in Fig. 1) extending from the top to the bottom to define an interior for receiving a patient’s head, the open bottom having bottom edges aligned in a plane to form a planar base,
Wherein a first sidewall has a pair of access openings for an operator’s hands (operator arm portals 34, 46, Fig. 3), and the structure has an open end opposite the first sidewall, the open end sized to accommodate at least a portion of the patient’s upper body when in use (open end opposite the first wall with patient upper body shown in Fig. 1), and
Wherein the top includes a first transparent panel extending from the first sidewall towards the open end at an upward incline relative to the plane of the base (upward incline panel above first sidewall with access openings shown in Fig. 1), the first transparent panel providing the operator with an undistorted and unobstructed view of the patient’s head.
Regarding claim 4, Susec teaches a flexible barrier removably attachable to the open end of the structure to provide an at least partial seal between the patient’s upper body and the open end of the structure (“lower patient portal 76 is preferably made of one or more thin layers of flexible sheet inserts, such as rubber, silicone or other elastic material”, paragraph [0039], “the flexible patient portal 76 is operably configured to be attachably removable to the rear patient portal 16”, paragraph [0041]; lower patient portal 76, rear patient portal 16, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Susec teaches the access openings provided in at least two of the sidewalls (access openings on all sidewalls shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Susec teaches each access opening including an attachment rim thereat for fastening a medical glove at the access opening to extend therethrough (“telescoping sleeved gloves may be utilized in lieu of the iris style portal”, paragraph [0051]; gloves can be attached to iris shape of arm portals in Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 9, Susec teaches a base tray attached to the base, the base tray having a depth to accommodate a mattress and having a bottom plate shaped to extend beneath the mattress (“bottom perimeter support footing 102 offers physical integrity and support as well as stability on soft, compressible surfaces such as hospital beds”, paragraph [0048]; bottom perimeter support 102, bottom perimeters 28, 40, 50, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Susec teaches the bottom plate of the base tray having a U-shape such that it extends only part-way beneath the mattress so as not to interfere with an attachment of the mattress to a support surface thereof (“the bottom perimeter support footing 102 generally extends inward therefrom defining a rectangular frame which further defines the open bottom 12 of the intubation barrier”, paragraph [0048]; bottom perimeters 28, 40, 50 forming U-shape in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Susec teaches a suction port extending from the structure for operatively extracting air from the interior of the structure (“suction port 138 functions as a conduit from the exterior to the interior cavity”, paragraph [0060], suction port 138, Fig. 10).
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.
Claim 2, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang.
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 17, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the exact angle of the incline of the first transparent panel being between 10 and 60 degrees, between 20 and 50 degrees, or between 25 and 45 degrees relative to the plane of the base.
However, Chang does teach the panels of the containment device at an incline relative to the plane of the base (best shown in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
271
382
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to optimize the first transparent panel of the containment device to be in between 10 and 60 degrees, between 20 and 50 degrees, or between 25 and 45 degrees relative to the plane of the base, 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, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,” 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 the inclination of the first transparent panel which achieves the recognized result of allowing the user to easily view the upper body of the patient through the transparent panel at an angled position, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has presented no criticality for the claimed ranges.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Conn (US 6367476 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the flexible barrier at the open end of the structure.
However, Conn teaches a flexible barrier (“canopy is preferably made of a generally flexible thermal plastic”, Col. 7 line 67-Col. 8 line 1; canopy 12, Fig. 1) removably attachable to the open end of the structure to provide an at least partial seal between the patient’s upper body and the open end of the structure (“the openings are preferably arranged such that when the canopy is draped over canopy support…the openings are positioned on the three sides…openings may be provided as…flaps…for covering the opening”, Col. 8, lines 41-49; access opening 67, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
452
525
media_image5.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 modify the containment device of Chang with the flexible barrier of Conn in order to allow the patient to easily enter the containment device while still providing a partial seal within the enclosure.
Regarding claim 15, a modified containment device of Chang in view of Conn teaches all limitations of claim 4.
Furthermore, Conn teaches the flexible barrier including a magnet or magnetic material near its periphery, for removably attaching it to the open end of the structure, the open end including a cooperating magnet or magnetic material (“the openings 67 may be provided as slits, holes, or the like… or flaps having…magnets…or the like”, Col. 8, lines 45-48; openings 67, Fig. 1).
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 containment device of Chang with the flexible barrier of Conn with a magnetic attachment mechanism, as magnets are easier to detach and reattach to the containment device and provide for easier cleaning and reusability of the flexible barrier.
Claims 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arizono (US 20190084166 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but not an attachment rim for fastening a medical glove at the access openings.
However, Arizono teaches each access opening including an attachment rim thereat for fastening a medical glove at the access opening to extend therethrough (“rim portion of the port formation hole…for an arm glove port”, paragraph [0044]; ports 20a, 20b in Fig. 1).
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 containment device of Chang with the attachment rim of Arizono in order to integrate gloves for the operator at the access openings in order to ensure sterility of the enclosed environment while also conveniently eliminating the need of using disposable gloves.
Regarding claim 7, a modified containment device of Chang in view of Arizono teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Furthermore, Arizono teaches each attachment rim including a recessed peripheral surface for removably receiving a proximal end of the medical glove to fasten it at the access opening (“a recessed groove 44 into which a retainer ring is fitted is formed in an inner peripheral surface 40b of the inner ring member”, paragraph [0049]; recessed groove 44, inner peripheral surface 40b, Fig. 3, Fig. 6).
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 containment device of Chang with the recessed peripheral surface of the attachment rim of Arizono in order to ensure a secure connection between the access openings and the glove.
Regarding claim 14, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 13, but does not teach the suction port being on the top of the structure and an air filter being adjacent to it.
However, Arizono teaches the suction port being provided on the top of the structure and an air filter is provided adjacent the suction port (air filter portion 9, Fig. 1).
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 containment device of Chang with the air filter of Arizono for circulation of air within the enclosure and ensure sterility during an operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susec in view of Forsell (US 20160008081 A1) and further in view of Conn.
Regarding claim 8, Susec teaches all the limitations of claim 6, but does not teach a fastening ring magnetically attached to the access opening to hold the gloves, as well as a cover magnetically attached to the access opening.
However, Forsell teaches each access opening including a fastening ring attached to the access opening to hold the glove in place (threaded rim connection of glove 2 shown in Fig. 5d), and a cover attached to the access opening when the opening is blocked (“the coupling 80 comprises a valve member 38 for closing the hole in the coupling”, paragraph [0670] valve member 38, coupling 80, Fig. 5d).
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 containment device of Susec with the fastening ring and cover of Forsell in order to ensure that the glove is held securely in place, as well as covering the opening when not in use to make it easier for storage and keeping the gloves and rings of the opening clean.
A modified Susec in view of Forsell fails to teach utilizing magnetic attachment means and instead utilizes a threaded rim cylinder.
However, Conn teaches the method of using a magnet as attachment means (Col. 8, lines 45-48).
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 modified containment device of Susec in view of Forsell with the magnetic attachment means of Conn. The substitution of one known element such as a threaded rim cylinder or a screw connection as taught by Forsell for another such as a magnet as taught by Conn would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, to attach the compartments together, as both are just attachment means. Using a magnet connection would make it easier to detach the gloves, as well as the cover, making it easier to take apart and wash the components of the containment device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Orr (US 4949714 A) and further in view of Conn.
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 9, but does not teach a flange in the plane of the base, the base tray having an upper flange, and a magnetic connection between the flanges of the base and the base tray.
However, Orr teaches the base including a flange in the plane of the base, the base tray having an upper flange, and the flanges of the base and base tray are attached together (“bottom flange 36 extends around the periphery of the bottom side 34”, Col. 4, lines 38-39; bottom flange 36, bottom side 34, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 containment device of Chang with the flange in the plane of the base and base tray of Orr in order to provide a stronger, secure connection between the base and base tray and be able to remove the base tray from the rest of the containment device for easy insertion of a mattress of varying sizes.
A modified Chang in view of Orr fails to teach utilizing magnetic attachment means and instead is integrally formed as a single piece.
However, Conn teaches the method of using a magnet as attachment means (Col. 8, lines 45-48).
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 containment device of Chang in view of Orr with the magnetic attachment means of Conn. The substitution of one known element such as flanges as taught by Orr for another such as magnets as taught by Conn would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, both basic magnets and a set of flanges, one in the plane of the base and one in the base tray would still have a magnetic connection, allowing the plane of the base to be easily detachable from the base tray, as flanges are typically made of a metallic material, allowing for magnetic connection.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Arizono and further in view of Forsell and furthest in view of Conn.
Regarding claim 18, a modified containment device of Chang in view of Arizono teaches the limitations of claim 7, but does not teach a fastening ring magnetically attached to the access opening to hold the gloves, as well as a cover magnetically attached to the access opening.
However, Forsell teaches each access opening including a fastening ring attached to the access opening to hold the glove in place (threaded rim connection of glove 2 shown in Fig. 5d), and a cover attached to the access opening when the opening is blocked (“the coupling 80 comprises a valve member 38 for closing the hole in the coupling”, paragraph [0670] valve member 38, coupling 80, Fig. 5d).
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 containment device of Chang in view of Arizono with the fastening ring and cover of Forsell in order to ensure that the glove is held securely in place, as well as covering the opening when not in use to make it easier for storage and keeping the gloves and rings of the opening clean.
A modified Chang in view of Arizono and further in view of Forsell fails to teach utilizing magnetic attachment means and instead utilizes a threaded rim cylinder.
However, Conn teaches the method of using a magnet as attachment means (Col. 8, lines 45-48).
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 modified containment device of Chang in view of Arizono and further in view of Forsell with the magnetic attachment means of Conn. The substitution of one known element such as a threaded rim cylinder or a screw connection as taught by Forsell for another such as a magnet as taught by Conn would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, to attach the compartments together, as both are just attachment means. Using a magnet connection would make it easier to detach the gloves, as well as the cover, making it easier to take apart and wash the components of the containment device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susec in view of Orr and further in view of Conn.
Regarding claim 19, Susec teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not teach a flange in the plane of the base, the base tray having an upper flange, and a magnetic connection between the flanges of the base and the base tray.
However, Orr teaches the base including a flange in the plane of the base, the base tray having an upper flange, and the flanges of the base and base tray are attached together (“bottom flange 36 extends around the periphery of the bottom side 34”, Col. 4, lines 38-39; bottom flange 36, bottom side 34, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 containment device of Susec with the flange in the plane of the base and base tray of Orr in order to provide a stronger, secure connection between the base and base tray and be able to remove the base tray from the rest of the containment device for easy insertion of a mattress of varying sizes.
A modified Susec in view of Orr fails to teach utilizing magnetic attachment means and instead is integrally formed as a single piece.
However, Conn teaches the method of using a magnet as attachment means (Col. 8, lines 45-48).
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 containment device of Susec in view of Orr with the magnetic attachment means of Conn. The substitution of one known element such as flanges as taught by Orr for another such as magnets as taught by Conn would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, both basic magnets and a set of flanges, one in the plane of the base and one in the base tray would still have a magnetic connection, allowing the plane of the base to be easily detachable from the base tray, as flanges are typically made of a metallic material, allowing for magnetic connection.
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