DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 11 September 2026. Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 13, 16 – 17, 19 – 21, 26, and 29 - 30 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, and 26.
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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, “each side wall” should read “each opposing side wall”.
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 9 - 12 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.
The term “generally” in claim 9, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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. It is unclear what “generally parallel” entails.
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.
Claims 1, 6 – 8, 17, 19, 21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 110767341 A, hereinafter “Zhang”, see attached) in view of Gnanashanmugam et al (US 20140316455 A1, hereinafter “Gnanashanmugam”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an apparatus (“an X-ray shielding device” page 1, paragraph 6) for forming a barrier (“an X-ray shielding device” page 1, paragraph 6) between a healthcare worker and a patient (“can avoid X-ray damage to medical staff” and “the protection capability of the medical staff” abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a frame (“2, rectangular frame” page 4 paragraph 1; Figures 1 - 3);
a plurality of wheels (“5, walking wheel,” Figures 1 - 4) coupled to the frame (2),
wherein the frame (2) is configured to be movably supported on a floor surface (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) by the plurality of wheels (5); and
a shield (“fixed baffle 4, an adjustable movable baffle plate” and “wherein, the adjustable movable baffle comprises a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7 and a rectangular frame 8, a lifting baffle plate 6 is provided with an operation hole 13 and the protective window 12, a transverse baffle 7 is provided with hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1) that is coupled to the frame (2), the shield comprising:
a front wall (“fixed baffle 4” and “a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7”, page 4, paragraph 3) that extends along a first horizontal axis (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below),
wherein the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) defines a pair of arm holes (“hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1; see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below; Figure 1 - 3, 6) that are configured to receive arms of the healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall (page 4, paragraphs 7 – 8; Figures 8 - 9),
wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes (“hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1; see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below; Figure 1 - 3, 6) is formed by an opening (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) in a respective portion of the shield (4, 6, 7, 8) and surrounded by a respective planar region (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) of the shield (4, 6, 7, 8), and
wherein a position (page 4, paragraph 7; Figures 1 – 3 and 7 - 9) of at least a portion of the shield (a portion of 4, 6, 7, 8) is vertically adjustable relative to the plurality of wheels (5) to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor surface (“the medical staff can stand operation (as shown in FIG. 8), and also can select sitting operation (as shown in FIG. 9)”, page 4, paragraph 7; Figures 8 - 9),
the at least a portion of the shield (the portion of 4, 6, 7, 8) comprising the respective planar regions (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) of the shield (4, 6, 7, 8) surrounding the pair of arm holes (14).
However, Gnanashanmugam discloses “a surgical environment enclosure” (abstract) and teaches at least a portion of the front wall is transparent (“enclosure 12 may be made entirely or partially of glass or some other non-flexible, transparent material” [0039]; Figures 1A – 1B; “enclosure may be made of a transparent material” [0024]).
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 apparatus of Zhang to incorporate at least a portion of the front wall is transparent, as taught by Gnanashanmugam, for the benefit of providing visibility for physician (Gnanashanmugam: [0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 under claim 1; see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 below) comprises an upper portion (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 below) and a lower portion (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 below),
wherein the upper portion is movable relative to the lower portion (Zhang: “an adjustable movable baffle of the lifting baffle plate 6 along the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches the upper portion of the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) is configured to move to a fully collapsed position (Zhang: “the medical staff can stand operation (as shown in FIG. 8), and also can select sitting operation (as shown in
FIG. 9)” page 4 paragraph 7; “the height since the height of different doctors are different, the same doctor using posture and stance is also different, and then the lifting height of the baffle 6 need to be adjusted according to the specific condition of the doctor, so that operation hole 13 the proper height” page 4 paragraph 8; “an adjustable movable baffle of the lifting baffle plate 6 along the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches all limitations of claim 7. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches when the upper portion of the front wall is in the fully collapsed position (Zhang: “the medical staff can stand operation (as shown in FIG. 8), and also can select sitting operation (as shown in FIG. 9)” page 4 paragraph 7; “the height since the height of different doctors are different, the same doctor using posture and stance is also different, and then the lifting height of the baffle 6 need to be adjusted according to the specific condition of the doctor, so that operation hole 13 the proper height” page 4 paragraph 8; “an adjustable movable baffle of the lifting baffle plate 6 along the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4).
The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam does not teach the upper portion of the front wall has a height that is no greater than five feet.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam by making the fully collapsed position having a height that is no greater than five feet in light of appropriate sized for adjustment according to the specific condition of the doctor as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Lastly, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed value.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches the frame comprises one of a walker, a child walking aid, or a stroller (Zhang: “walking wheel” page 3, paragraph 5; Examiner interprets as Zhang’s invention is moved around while walking and interprets as a walker.).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches at least a portion of the shield (Zhang: a portion of “fixed baffle 4, an adjustable movable baffle plate” and “wherein, the adjustable movable baffle comprises a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7 and a rectangular frame 8, a lifting baffle plate 6 is provided with an operation hole 13 and the protective window 12, a transverse baffle 7 is provided with hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1) is collapsible relative to the frame to reduce a height of the shield (4, 6, 7, 8) above the floor surface (Zhang: “the medical staff can stand operation (as shown in FIG. 8), and also can select sitting operation (as shown in FIG. 9)” page 4 paragraph 7; “the height since the height of different doctors are different, the same doctor using posture and stance is also different, and then the lifting height of the baffle 6 need to be adjusted according to the specific condition of the doctor, so that operation hole 13 the proper height” page 4 paragraph 8; “an adjustable movable baffle of the lifting baffle plate 6 along the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 19. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 under claim 1; see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) comprises an upper portion (Zhang: see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) that extends above the frame (Zhang: “an adjustable movable baffle” page 4 paragraph 4),
wherein the upper portion of the front wall (Zhang: see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) is slidably coupled to the frame (Zhang: “the height since the height of different doctors are different, the same doctor using posture and stance is also different, and then the lifting height of the baffle 6 need to be adjusted according to the specific condition of the doctor, so that operation hole 13 the proper height” page 4 paragraph 8; “an adjustable movable baffle of the lifting baffle plate 6 along the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4)
so that the upper portion (Zhang: see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) is movable along a vertical axis (Zhang: “rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4”) relative to the frame (Zhang: “2, rectangular frame” page 4 paragraph 1; Figures 1 - 3).
Regarding claim 29, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam is the apparatus further comprising rails or tracks (Zhang: “an
adjustable movable baffle of the lifting baffle plate 6 along the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4 paragraph 4),
wherein the at least a portion of the shield (Zhang: a portion of “fixed baffle 4, an adjustable movable baffle plate” and “wherein, the adjustable movable baffle comprises a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7 and a rectangular frame 8, a lifting baffle plate 6 is provided with an operation hole 13 and the protective window 12, a transverse baffle 7 is provided with hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1) is slidable along the rails or tracks (“vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4 paragraph 4) to permit selection of the operative height of the arm holes (Zhang: “hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1; Figure 1 - 3, 6) from the floor surface (Zhang: page 4, paragraph 8; “the medical staff can stand operation (as shown in FIG. 8), and also can select sitting operation (as shown in FIG. 9)”, page 4, paragraph 7; Figures 8 - 9).
Claims 2 – 3, 9 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Gnanashanmugam, as applied in claim 1, in view of Censi et al (US 20210315658 A1, hereinafter "Censi”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam does not teach the shield further comprises opposing side walls that extend from the front wall along a second horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the first horizontal axis.
However, Censi discloses (“shields for protecting people from a patient”, abstract) and teaches a shield further comprises opposing side walls (“a second panel 120, a third panel 130” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8) that extend from a front wall (“a fourth panel 140” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8) along a second horizontal axis (see Censi annotated Figure 5 below) that is perpendicular to a first horizontal axis (see Censi annotated Figure 5 below; Figures 5 - 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
542
media_image3.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 apparatus of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam such that the shield further comprises opposing side walls that extend from the front wall along a second horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the first horizontal axis, as taught by Censi, for the benefit of lowering the transferrable rate of contagious or harmful virus (Censi: [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teach all limitations of claim 2. The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teaches the front wall is planar (Zhang: (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 under claim 1), and
wherein the opposing side walls (Censi: “a second panel 120, a third panel 130” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8) extend rearwardly from the front wall (Zhang: “fixed baffle 4” and “a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7”, page 4, paragraph 3) of the shield (Zhang: “fixed baffle 4, an adjustable movable baffle plate” and “wherein, the adjustable movable baffle comprises a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7 and a rectangular frame 8, a lifting baffle plate 6 is provided with an operation hole 13 and the protective window 12, a transverse baffle 7 is provided with hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1) along the second horizontal axis (Censi: Figures 5 - 8).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam does not teach the shield further comprises opposing side walls,
wherein at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls is pivotable about and between:
a respective first position, in which the at least a portion of the respective side wall extends from the front wall along a second horizontal axis that is perpendicular to the first horizontal axis; and
a respective second position, in which the at least a portion of the respective side wall is parallel to or generally parallel to the front wall.
However, Censi discloses (“shields for protecting people from a patient”, abstract) and teaches a shield (“shield 10” [0017] – [0020]) further comprises opposing side walls (“a second panel 120, a third panel 130” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8),
wherein at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls (a portion of 120 and 130) is pivotable about and between (Figures 3 - 5):
a respective first position (Figures 6 - 8), in which the at least a portion of the respective side wall extends from a front wall (“a fourth panel 140” [0017]; Figures 1 – 8; see Censi’s annotated Figure 7 below) along a second horizontal axis (see Censi’s annotated Figure 7 below) that is perpendicular to a first horizontal axis (see Censi’s annotated Figure 7 below) (Figures 6 - 8); and
a respective second position (Figures 1 - 4), in which the at least a portion of the respective side wall is parallel to or generally parallel to the front wall (140) (Figures 1 - 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
312
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teach all limitations of claim 2. The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teaches the shield (Zhang: “fixed baffle 4, an adjustable movable baffle plate” and “wherein, the adjustable movable baffle comprises a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7 and a rectangular frame 8, a lifting baffle plate 6 is provided with an operation hole 13 and the protective window 12, a transverse baffle 7 is provided with hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1) further comprises a rear wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 under claim 1; Figures 2 - 3) that extends between the opposing side walls (Censi: “a second panel 120, a third panel 130” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8) along the first horizontal axis (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 under claim 1).
Claims 10 – 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi, in view of Zhang et al (CN 106562825 A, see attached translation, hereinafter “Zhang ‘825”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teach all limitations of claim 9. The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teaches the opposing side walls (Censi: “a second panel 120, a third panel 130” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8) each comprise an upper portion and a lower portion (Censi: Figures 5 – 8; Examiner interprets the opposing side walls have an upper portion and a lower portion.).
The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi does not teach wherein the upper portion of each side wall is movable about and between the respective first position and the respective second position.
However, Zhang ‘825 discloses “vertical operating platform” (abstract) and teaches an upper portion (see annotated Zhang’s Figure 1 below) of each side wall (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 below) is movable about and between the respective first position and the respective second position (Zhang ‘825: “a height adjusting structure comprises an adjusting nut 9 and the adjusting screw 10”, page 5 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 2; “capable of freely adjusting the height so as to adapt to different need of doctor”, page 3 paragraph 11).
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 apparatus of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi such that the upper portion of each side wall is movable about and between the respective first position and the respective second position, as taught by Zhang, for the benefit of avoids the influence of protective clothing to the user and improves the effect of the operation (Zhang ‘825: abstract).
PNG
media_image5.png
405
540
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Zhang, Gnanashanmugam, Censi and Zhang ‘825 teach all limitations of claim 10. The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam, Censi and Zhang ‘825 teaches the upper portion (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 under claim 10) of the front wall (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 under claim 10) and respective upper portions (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 under claim 10) of the side walls (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 under claim 10) are slidable along a vertical axis about and between (Zhang ‘825: “a height adjusting structure comprises an adjusting nut 9 and the adjusting screw 10”, page 5 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 2; “capable of freely adjusting the height so as to adapt to different need of doctor”, page 3 paragraph 11) a raised configuration (Examiner interprets adjusting the height higher is a raised configuration.) and a compact configuration (Examiner interprets adjusting the height lower is a compact configuration.) to adjust an operative height (Zhang ‘825: page 5 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 11) of the apparatus (Zhang: “an X-ray shielding device” page 1, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teach all limitations of claim 2. The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi does not teach at least a portion of the front wall and at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls are configured to slide vertically as a coupled assembly.
However, Zhang ‘825 discloses “vertical operating platform” (abstract) and teaches at least a portion of the front wall (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 below) and at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 below) are configured to slide vertically as a coupled assembly (Zhang ‘825: “a height adjusting structure comprises an adjusting nut 9 and the adjusting screw 10”, page 5 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 2; “capable of freely adjusting the height so as to adapt to different need of doctor”, page 3 paragraph 11).
PNG
media_image5.png
405
540
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 apparatus of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi such that at least a portion of the front wall and at least a portion of each of the opposing side walls are configured to slide vertically as a coupled assembly, as taught by Zhang, for the benefit of avoids the influence of protective clothing to the user and improves the effect of the operation (Zhang ‘825: abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Gnanashanmugam, as applied in claim 1 in view of Rogers (US 5179746 A, hereinafter “Rogers”).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 1. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam does not teach the frame is movably supported on slidable skids.
However, Rogers teaches an apparatus (the apparatus illustrated in Fig. 3; col 5 In 25-38) comprising a frame (22, Fig. 3; col 5 In 4-24) that is movably supported on a plurality of slidable skids (26, Fig. 3; col 5 In 25-38).
Rogers teaches including this technical feature to adjust the stability of an apparatus (as illustrated in Figs. 5 and 9; "protective skids", col 5 In 25-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the apparatus taught by Zhang and Gnanashanmugam could have been modified as claimed in view of Rogers to optimize the stability of an apparatus as desired or necessary to meet the demands or requirements of a given application.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Gnanashanmugam, as applied in claim 1, in view of Fuqua et al (US 8015910 B1, hereinafter “Fuqua”).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teach all limitations of claim 19. The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam teaches the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 under claim 1; see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) comprises an upper portion (Zhang: see Zhang’s annotated Figure 1 under claim 6) that extends above the frame (Zhang: “an adjustable movable baffle” page 4 paragraph 4).
The modified invention of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam does not teach wherein the upper portion of the front wall is hingedly coupled to the frame to reduce the height of the shield above the floor surface.
However, Fuqua discloses “a body panel assembly” (abstract) and discloses the upper portion (“the upper ballistic panel 21” column 4, line 30) of a front wall (“the upper and lower body panels 21, 22 using metal hinges 58” column 4, lines 59 - 60) is hingedly (“the upper and lower body panels 21, 22 using metal hinges 58” column 4, lines 59 - 60) coupled to the frame (“frame elements 24A, 24B, 25A, 25B” column 4, line 59) to reduce the height of the shield (“a mobile and convertible ballistic structure”, column 3, lines 60 - 61) above the floor surface (Figures 1 - 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 apparatus of Zhang and Gnanashanmugam such that the upper portion of the front wall is hingedly coupled to the frame to reduce the height of the shield above the floor surface, as taught by Fuqua, for the benefit of providing a collapsed/contracted position for the user (Fuqua: column 1, line 33).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (CN 110767341 A, hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Gnanashanmugam et al (US 20140316455 A1, hereinafter “Gnanashanmugam”).
Regarding claim 30, Zhang teaches an apparatus (“an X-ray shielding device” page 1, paragraph 6) for forming a barrier (“an X-ray shielding device” page 1, paragraph 6) between a healthcare worker and a patient (“can avoid X-ray damage to medical staff” and “the protection capability of the medical staff” abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a frame (“2, rectangular frame” page 4 paragraph 1; Figures 1 - 3);
a plurality of wheels (“5, walking wheel,” Figures 1 - 4) coupled to the frame (2),
wherein the frame (2) is configured to be movably supported on a floor surface (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) by the plurality of wheels (5);
a shield (“fixed baffle 4, an adjustable movable baffle plate” and “wherein, the adjustable movable baffle comprises a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7 and a rectangular frame 8, a lifting baffle plate 6 is provided with an operation hole 13 and the protective window 12, a transverse baffle 7 is provided with hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1) that is coupled to the frame (2), the shield (4, 6, 7, 8) comprising a front wall (“fixed baffle 4” and “a lifting baffle plate 6, a transverse baffle 7”, page 4, paragraph 3) that extends along a first horizontal axis (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below),
wherein the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) defines a pair of arm holes (“hand hole 14” page 4, paragraph 1; Figure 1 - 3, 6) that are configured to receive arms of the healthcare worker positioned behind the front wall (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below),
wherein each arm hole of the pair of arm holes (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) is formed by an opening (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) in a respective portion of the shield (4, 6, 7, 8) and surrounded by a respective planar region (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) of the shield (4, 6, 7, 8), and
rails or tracks (“vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4), wherein at least a portion of the shield (a portion of 4, 6, 7, 8) is vertically movable relative to the frame (1, 2; “the mounting on the rectangular frame 2 vertical slide rail 10 slide up and down” page 4, paragraph 4) on the rails or tracks (10) to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes (see Zhang’s annotated Figure 3 below) from the floor surface (“the medical staff can stand operation (as shown in FIG. 8), and also can select sitting operation (as shown in FIG. 9)”, page 4, paragraph 7; Figures 8 - 9).
PNG
media_image6.png
548
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhang does not teach wherein at least a portion of the front wall is transparent.
However, Gnanashanmugam discloses “a surgical environment enclosure” (abstract) and teaches at least a portion of the front wall is transparent (“enclosure 12 may be made entirely or partially of glass or some other non-flexible, transparent material” [0039]; Figures 1A – 1B; “enclosure may be made of a transparent material” [0024]).
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 apparatus of Zhang to incorporate at least a portion of the front wall is transparent, as taught by Gnanashanmugam, for the benefit of providing visibility for physician (Gnanashanmugam: [0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome a claim objection and a U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as well as in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, in light of applicant’s amendments, filed 11 September 2026, no prior art of record, either singly or in combination teach and/or fairly suggest an apparatus for forming a barrier between a healthcare worker and a patient, wherein the upper portion of the front wall and respective upper portions of the side walls are pivotable about and between a raised configuration and a compact configuration to adjust an operative height of the apparatus as claimed while including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The inclusion of “An apparatus for forming a barrier between a healthcare worker and a patient”, “wherein a position of at least a portion of the shield is vertically adjustable relative to the plurality of wheels to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor surface, the at least a portion of the shield comprising the respective planar regions of the shield surrounding the pair of arm holes” and “the upper portion of the front wall and respective upper portions of the side walls are pivotable about and between a raised configuration and a compact configuration to adjust an operative height of the apparatus” is what sets the application apart from prior art.
The closet prior art of record, Zhang, Gnanashanmugam, Censi and Zhang ‘825, as applied in claim 10, in combination teach the following:
The modified invention of Zhang, Gnanashanmugam and Censi teaches the opposing side walls (Censi: “a second panel 120, a third panel 130” [0017]; Figures 5 - 8) each comprise an upper portion and a lower portion (Censi: Figures 5 – 8; Examiner interprets the opposing side walls have an upper portion and a lower portion.).
Zhang ‘825 teaches an upper portion (see annotated Zhang’s Figure 1 below) of each side wall (see annotated Zhang ‘825’s Figure 1 below) is movable about and between the respective first position and the respective second position (Zhang ‘825: “a height adjusting structure comprises an adjusting nut 9 and the adjusting screw 10”, page 5 paragraph 2; page 3 paragraph 2; “capable of freely adjusting the height so as to adapt to different need of doctor”, page 3 paragraph 11).
However, these references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, “An apparatus for forming a barrier between a healthcare worker and a patient”, “wherein a position of at least a portion of the shield is vertically adjustable relative to the plurality of wheels to permit selection of an operative height of the arm holes from the floor surface, the at least a portion of the shield comprising the respective planar regions of the shield surrounding the pair of arm holes” and “the upper portion of the front wall and respective upper portions of the side walls are pivotable about and between a raised configuration and a compact configuration to adjust an operative height of the apparatus” as claimed while including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, page 7, filed 11 September 2026, with respect to claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objection for claim 1 of 11 June 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, page 7, filed 11 September 2026, with respect to U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claim 3 of 11 June 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 8 - 10, with respect to claim 1 over Maleki have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 10 - 11, with respect to claims 1 over Kropf in view of Maleki have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 10 - 11, with respect to claims 1 over Fuqua in view of Kropf in view of Maleki have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kawasaki et al (US 20130061567 A1) discloses an “isolator device having a work chamber” (abstract).
Holter et al (US 4305168 A) discloses “A hood formed of several panels at a head of a bed reduces noise and provides ventilation” (abstract) and “the top panel 23 is connected to the back panel 24 with hinges 25 to form a swivel bearing” (column 3, lines 9 - 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights