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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "90" in Figure 2 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “seating element” in claim 16 , equivalent structure found on page 7, lines 1-7 . Therefore, the interpretation of “seating element” is best understood as a stool, chair, bench , armchair , and equivalents thereof . “electrical storage element” in claim 17 , equivalent structure found on page 15, lines 14-20 . Therefore, the interpretation of an “electrical storage element” is best understood as a battery, identified as an accumulator, a fuel cell system , and equivalents thereof . “ventilation element” in claim 20 , equivalent structure found o n page 17, lines 31-34 and page 18, lines 1-2; page 18, lines 15-27 . Therefore, the interpretation of a “ventilation element” is best understood as an air reservoir , capable of filtering air via a HEPA filter and processing said air using UV-C radiation, and equivalents thereof. “emergency element” in claim 23 , equivalent structure found on page 26, lines 1-15 . Therefore, the interpretation of an “emergency element” is best understood as an emergency handle, switch , and equivalents thereof. “pass-through element” in claim 25 , equivalent structure found on page 24, lines 16-34 . Therefore, the interpretation of a “pass-through element” is best understood as invertible gloves, single use gloves, and equivalents thereof. Claim 26 is noted as reciting structure for performing the claimed function, and is therefore not subject to this interpretation “control element” in claims 27-2 8 , equivalent structure found o n page 20, lines 13-15; page 23, lines 8-15 . Therefore, the interpretation of a “control element” is best understood as software, computers, touch displays , joysticks, and equivalents thereof. Claim 29 is noted as reciting structure for performing the claimed function, and is therefore not subject to this interpretation “disinfection element” in claim 30 , equivalent structure found on page 21, lines 18-28 . Therefore, the interpretation of a “disinfection element” is best understood as one or more jets that are connected to a disinfection reservoir, whereby the disinfectant is sprayed, and equivalents thereof. “protective device” in claim 35 , equivalent structure found on page 1, lines 20-35. Therefore, the interpretation of a “protective device” is best understood as device, comprising a protective housing that defines an interior space, a closable access opening to enter the interior space, a seating element, a chassis for moving the device, wherein the device seals the interior space in an airtight manner against an environment, and equivalents thereof. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 28 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. Claim 28 recites the limitation “the outer side” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite . For the purposes of examination, the limitation is read as “an outer side”. 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. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 16, 20-21, 25, 31, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 4 ]" Yoshimoto et al. (JP 2005/021433) . Regarding claim 16, Yoshimoto et al. teaches a protection device (wheelchair type isolator 1 to protect against pathogens (page 7, para. 0039, “ separated from the outside so that pathogens existing in the outside are not scattered inside the isolator ”), comprising: a protective housing that defines an interior space (Figure 1, isolation portion 9; page 4, para. 0020, “ the wheelchair type isolator 1 is detachably attached between the seat part 5 and the backrest part 7 of the wheelchair 3, and the inside is isolated for the outside world ”), a closable access opening to enter the interior space (Figures 1 and 3, opening/closing member 16; page 4, para. 0023, “The front part 9b of the isolation part 9 is provided with an entrance for a patient to enter and exit the isolation part 9 ”), a seating element that allows at least one passenger to sit in the interior space (Figure 8, seat part 5), and a chassis for moving the protective device (Figure 8, where the wheelchair 3 includes a frame that supports the wheels) wherein the protective device, in a closed state, seals the interior space in an airtight manner against an environment (page 8, para. 0043, “The isolation portion 9 is in a sealed space including a back surface portion 9a, a front surface portion 9b, both side surface portions 9c, a bottom surface portion 9d, and a top surface portion 9e ”) . Regarding claim 20, Yoshimoto et al. teaches a ventilation element (ventilation unit 11) , configured for providing an air stream to the interior space (Figure 1; page 6, para. 0031, “ The ventilation unit 11 connects the air supply / exhaust unit 33 detachably disposed on the base 31 of the wheelchair 3, the air supply / exhaust unit 33 and the isolation part 9 so as to communicate with each other, and the duct 35 for supplying and exhausting the inside of the isolation part 9 ”) . Regarding claim 21, Yoshimoto et al. teaches wherein the ventilation element is configured to create an overpressure and/or a negative pressure in the interior space (page 6 , para. 00 31 , “ The inside of the isolation part 9 can be switched between a negative pressure state and a positive pressure state by changing the rotation direction of a fan provided in the air supply / exhaust unit 33 ” ). Regarding claim 25, Yoshimoto et al. teaches at least one pass-through element (Figures 4, treatment port 27 and second lid body 27a; page 5, para. 0026, “ A treatment port 27 is provided slightly forward near the center of both side surfaces 9c, 9c of the isolation part 9 so that a therapist or the like can insert an arm into the isolation part 9 ”) . Regarding claim 31, Yoshimoto et al. teaches wherein the access opening is located on the front side of the protective housing (Figure 6, front surface portion 9b; page 4, para. 0023, “ The front part 9b of the isolation part 9 is provided with an entrance for a patient to enter and exit the isolation part 9, and the entrance can be opened and closed by an opening and closing member 16 made of a fastener or the like provided in the isolation part 9 ”) . Regarding claim 35, Yoshimoto et al. teaches a method to protect against pathogens (Abstract, “ The wheelchair type isolator 1 is used for carrying a patient seated on a wheelchair 3 in the isolated state ”) , comprising providing a protective device to a passenger (page 8, para. 0042, “in the wheelchair type isolator 1… the isolation/separating portion 9 accommodates the patient attached to the wheelchair 3”) , closing the protective device in an airtight manner (page 8, para. 0042, “the patient can be isolated”) , and moving the protective device (page 8, para. 0042, “transported while being seated on the wheelchair 3”) . 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(s) 17- 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Burela (US 2020/0022853) . Regarding claim 17, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach wherein the chassis comprises an electric drive, and the protective device further comprising: an electrical storage element, configured to supply the electric drive with energy. Burela teaches an analogous seating device wherein the chassis comprises an electric drive (Figures 1, and 13-14, traction motors 3; paragraphs 0002, and 0044-0047), and the protective device further comprising: an electrical storage element, configured to supply the electric drive with energy (Figure 1, two batteries 4; paragraphs 0018, and 0044-0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the chassis comprising an electric drive, and the protective device further comprising: an electrical storage element, configured to supply the electric drive with energy of Burela . Implementing an electric drive and storage element , specifically a motor and batteries, provides users with greater locomotion freedom . Because of the batteries, the need for a third party is eliminated, as such , the device is completely self-driving. Overall, the electrical components provide the user with a device that can be used autonomously ( Burela , paragraphs 0002, 0004-0005, and 0010). Regarding claim 18, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach wherein the protective device is configured to move autonomously. Burela teaches an analogous seating device wherein the protective device is configured to move autonomously (para. 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the autonomously moving feature of Burela . Implementing an electric drive and storage element, specifically a motor and batteries, provides users with greater locomotion freedom. Because of the batteries, the need for a third party is eliminated, as such , the device is completely self-driving. Overall, the electrical components provide the user with a that can be used autonomously ( Burela , paragraphs 0002, 0004-0005, and 0010). Claim (s) 19, 22-23, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 16 above , further in view of Gershon et al. (US 10,888,479 ) . Regarding claim 19, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach wherein the protective housing comprises an anti-bacterial and/or anti-viral coating. Gershon et al. teaches an analogous protective device wherein the protective housing comprises an anti-bacterial and/or anti-viral coating (Col. 9, line 65- Col. 10, lines 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the anti-bacterial and/or anti-viral coating of Gershon et al. Intrinsically , anti-bacterial coatings fight against pathogenic bacteria growth; subsequently , with the reasonable expectation of success, combing an anti-bacterial/viral coating may stop the spread of pathogenic bacteria on the external portion of the protective enclosure (Gershon et al., Col. 9, line 65 Col. 10, line5 ). Regarding claim 22, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach wherein the protective device is configured to be remote-controlled. Gershon et al. teaches an analogous protective device wherein the protective device is configured to be remote-controlled (Col. 14, line 56-Col. 15, line4 where the computer system 20 operates in a network environment, connected to remote computers 49 that communicate with the biosafety enclosure 100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the remote-controlled feature of Gershon et al. Implementing a remote-controlled element allows the computing system to execute instructions to the biosafety enclosure from a remote distance, thereby granting the occupant or an third party the ability to communicate with certain features of the enclosure, such as the locking mechanisms, sensors, and vents (Gershon et al., Col. 14, lines 38-47 and 56-61). Regarding claim 23, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach an emergency element. Gershon et al. teaches an analogous protective device comprising an emergency element (Figure 1; Col. 6, lines 44-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the emergency element of Gershon et al. Doing so provides multiple points of entry , thereby allow ing the user to easily enter/exit the enclosure in case of an emergency (Gershon et al., Col. 6, lines 35-50). Regarding claim 32, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach at least one sensor being configured to measure vital data of at least one passenger of the protective device. Gershon et al. teaches an analogous protective device comprising at least one sensor being configured to measure vital data of at least one passenger of the protective device (Figure 7, sensors 704; Col. 10, lines 6-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with at least one sensor being configured to measure vital data of at least one passenger of the protective device of Gershon et al. With the use of sensors, valuable biometric data derived from the user’s heart rate, breathing rate, blood pressure, etc., can be collected and transmitted to a risk module to determine the likelihood of pathogenic exposure inside the biosafety enclosure . (Gershon et al., Col. 12, lines 1-26). Regarding claim 33, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach at least one sensor being configured to measure the air on the interior and/or the exterior of the protective device. Gershon et al. teaches an analogous protective device comprising at least one sensor being configured to measure the air on the interior and/or the exterior of the protective device (Figure 7, sensors 704; Col. 10, lines 6-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with at least one sensor being configured to measure the air on the interior and/or the exterior of the protective device of Gershon et al. With the use of air quality sensors, the protective device can be monitored in real time. This information may provide insights into the state of the enclosure and may prompt related combative measures to decrease the risk of air pollutants escaping (Gershon et al., Col. 10, lines 6-13). Claim (s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 16 above , further in view of Sutton (US 5,706,846 ) . Regarding claim 24, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach an intercom system. Sutton teaches an analogous protective device comprising an intercom system (Col. 9, lines 5-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the intercom system of Sutton. Doing so facilitates communication between the isolated user and a third party in question (Sutton, Col. 9, lines 10-17). Claim (s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 25 above , further in view of Gauger et al. (US 6,321,764 ) . Regarding claim 26, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 25 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach wherein the at least one pass-through element comprises an invertible glove. Gauger et al. teaches an analogous protective device wherein the at least one pass-through element comprises an invertible glove (Figure 3, glove ports 200; Col. 1, lines 45-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with at least one pass-through element comprising an invertible glove of Gauger et al. The gloves boxes enable the user to be manipulated without breaking the barrier and emitting harmful contaminants from the environment into the device (Gauger et al., Col. 7, lines 31-35). Claim (s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 16 above , further in view of Alghazi ( WO 2021/178425 ) . Regarding claim 27, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach a control element, configured for controlling the protective device. Alghazi teaches an analogous seating device comprising a control element, configured for controlling the protective device ( paragraphs 0062 and 0088, electronic controller 138 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with the control element, configured for controlling the protective device of Alghazi . Implementing a control element, may facilitate the manipulation of the seating device ; accordingly, via a n electric controller with touch interfaces , the user may control the motion of the device without exerting manual effort ( Alghazi , paragraphs 0099-0101 ). Regarding claim 28, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) above, Yoshimoto et al. in view of Alghazi teaches the protective device according to claim 27 as stated above wherein the control element is arranged at the outer side of the protective device ( Alghazi , para. 0025; Figure 7, where the electronic controller is integrated into the armrest 108 ). Regarding claim 29, Yoshimoto et al. in view of Alghazi teaches the protective device according to claim 27 as stated above wherein the control element is configured as a joystick ( Alghazi , para graphs 0025 and 0099 ). Claim (s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 16 above , further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0265498 ) . Regarding claim 30, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach a disinfection element, configured for disinfecting the protective device. Lee et al. teaches an analogous protective device comprising a disinfection element, configured for disinfecting the protective device (Figure 2, disinfection device 105; paragraph 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with a disinfection element, configured for disinfecting the protective device of Lee et al. By implementing a disinfection element, the likelihood of the patient or healthcare provider contracting an infectious disease is reduced . The process of sterilizing effectively kills harmful pathogens (Lee et al., Abstract ; para. 0002 ). Claim (s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yoshimoto et al. as applied to claim 16 above , further in view of Wilde (US 2014/0167388 ) . Regarding claim 34, Yoshimoto et al. teaches the protective device according to claim 16 as stated above. Yoshimoto et al. fails to teach wherein the seating element has a seating surface that is adjustable in height. Wilde teaches an analogous seating device wherein the seating element has a seating surface that is adjustable in height ( paragraphs 0017 and 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the protective device of Yoshimoto et al. with a seating element that has a height adjustable seating surface of Wilde. Doing so would offer the user a comfortable seat, that is customizable, encourages proper posture, and reduces the likelihood of failing out of the chair (Wilde, para. 0017). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chamorro-Perez et al. (US 2002/0087045) teaches a patient drape system and patient transport similar to a bed apparatus; however, Chamorro-Perez et al. does not specifically disclose a seating element. Townsend (US 2008/0012258) teaches a climate-control system for a wheelchair that isolates the environment contained in the enclosure from the ambient. Murdock (US 2007/0080519) teaches an adult stroller and a canopy coupled to a flexible shield. Williams (US 4,754,987) teaches a removable enclosure for a wheelchair that protects an occupant from an ambient environment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1390 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Robertson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5001 . 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. /B.R.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791