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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: the phase "or both" should be deleted. 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 8, 10-11, 22-23, 25 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 claims 8, 22, & 25 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. the term generally makes the limitations of component orientation in the device indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen.
In regards to Claim 1: A device for shielding a user from a patient during an intubation procedure or other procedure, the device comprising:
a base (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44; Column 3 Lines 48-50);
a shield coupled to the base, the shield extending vertically and horizontally relative to the base (Chen, Figure 1 Item 12; Column 3 Lines 44-47); and
a flexible drape coupled to or overlaid on the shield such that an interior space is defined by the shield and the flexible drape, the flexible drape including at least one opening to allow access into the interior space (Chen, Figure 1 Item 52; Column 4 Line 45-49).
In regards to Claim 2: The device of claim 1, wherein the shield is transparent (Chen, Figure 1 Items 14 &30; Column 4 Lines 3-6).
In regards to Claim 8: The device of claim 1, wherein the base includes a generally horizontal baseplate and a generally vertical post coupled to the baseplate, the shield being coupled to the generally vertical post (Chen Figure 1 Items 10, 46, & 42; Column 3 Lines 31-33 & 48-50).
In regards to Claim 10: The device of claim 8, wherein a height of the post is adjustable, such that a vertical distance between the shield and the baseplate is adjustable (Chen, Figure 1 Item 22, 26, & 46; Column 3 Lines 48-60).
In regards to Claim 12: The device of claim 1, wherein the base includes a slot configured to receive an end of the shield, and a shield-locking feature configured to lock the end of the shield in the slot (Chen, Figure 1 & 2 Item 22; Column 3 Line 52-56).
In regards to Claim 17: The device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the shield is configured to be positioned between the user and a face of the patient, at least a portion of the flexible drape is configured to be positioned between the user and a face of the patient, or both (Chen Figure 1 Items 52 & B; Column 2 Lines 65-68 & Column 3 Lines 1-5).
In regards to Claim 19: The device of claim 1, wherein a face of the user is configured to be positioned in the interior space (Chen, Figure 1 Item 10 & B; Column 3 Lines 31-47).
In regards to Claim 22: The device of claim 1, wherein the base includes a generally horizontal baseplate (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44), a first generally vertical post (Chen, Figure 1 Item 42), and a second generally vertical post (Chen, Figure 1 Item 46), the first post coupled to the baseplate and the second post coupled to the shield, the first post and the second post being movable relative to each other such that a height of the shield is adjustable relative to the baseplate (Chen, Column 3 Lines 31-47).
In regards to Claim 23: wherein the first post is coaxially mounted within the second post, or wherein the second post is coaxially mounted within the first post, and wherein the device further comprises a locking mechanism configured to lock relative movement between the first post and the second post (Chen Figure 1 Items 42 & 46; Column 3 Lines 48-50; The ring in between in reasonably inferred to be a twisting component used to secure the two posts together at a set height).
In regards to Claim 25: The device of claim 1, wherein the base includes a generally horizontal baseplate (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44) and a generally vertical post (Chen, Figure 1 Item 42), the shield being coupled to the vertical post such that an angle of the shield relative to the vertical post is adjustable (Chen, Figure 1 Item 48; Column 3 Lines 52-56).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen in view of 2018/0087253 hereinafter Dick.
In regard to Claim 3: Chen teaches all of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the shield has a trapezoid shape with a first end, a second end, a first lateral side, and a second lateral side, the first end being positioned proximal to the base, the second end being positioned distal to the base.
Dick teaches wherein the shield has a trapezoid shape with a first end (Dick Figure 2 Item W1), a second end (Dick Figure 2 Item W2), a first lateral side (Dick Figure 2 Item 250), and a second lateral side (Dick Figure 2 Item 260), the first end being positioned proximal to the base, the second end being positioned distal to the base (Dick, Paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the trapezoidal shape of the shield taught in Dick to the viewing shield of Chen, the motivation being to provide an enclosed field that expand as it drapes across the chest, eclosing the patient.
In regards to Claim 4: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 3, and wherein the device is configured to be positioned relative to the patient such that a central portion of the shield between the first end and the second end is configured to be aligned with the face of the patient (Chen Column 2 Lines 65-68; Column 3 Lines 2-6).
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Chen teaches all of Claim 3, and wherein the second end of the shield is longer than the first end of the shield, such that a width of the shield increases between the first end and the second end (Dick, Figure 2 Item W1 is smaller than W2); Paragraph 19).
In regards to Claim 15: Chen teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the shield is positioned at an angle of about 45° relatives to horizontal, wherein the shield includes a cut-out portion forming a handle.
Dick teaches wherein the shield is positioned at an angle of about 45° relatives to horizontal, wherein the shield includes a cut-out portion forming a handle (Dick, Paragraphs 20 & 23; Figure 5 Item 400 and 370).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the angle of the shield and the handle taught in Dick to the viewing shield of Chen, the motivation being to provide a proper viewing angle of the patient and the ability to adjust the shield when necessary.
Claim(s) 6 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen in view of US 2002/0045796 hereinafter O'Connor.
In regards to Claim 6: Chen teaches all of claim 1 and of a flexible drape including an opening (Chen, Figure 1 Item 52), but does not teach a first opening on a first side of the drape and a second opening on a second side of the drape opposite the first side of the drape, the first opening, the second opening, or both being sized to allow an arm of the user to access the interior space.
O’Connor teaches a first opening on a first side of the drape and a second opening on a second side of the drape opposite the first side of the drape (O’Connor, Figure 1 Item 111 & 113), the first opening, the second opening, or both being sized to allow an arm of the user to access the interior space (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the entry ports taught in O’Connor to the viewing shield of Chen, the motivation being to provide a port into the field created by the drape to allow the user to interact with what is inside the field with minimal disturbance to the field’s seal.
In regards to Claim 14: Chen teaches all of claim 1 and wherein the base includes a vertical post configured to be positioned between the user and a face of the patient (Chen, Figure 1 Items 42 & 46; Examiner infers that a person would be able to be positioned in the way describe), but does not teach wherein the at least one opening in the flexible drape includes a first opening spaced apart from the vertical post in a first direction, and a second opening spaced apart from the vertical post in a second direction, the first opening being sized to accommodate a first arm of the user, the second opening being sized to accommodate a second arm of the user.
O’Connor teaches wherein the at least one opening in the flexible drape includes a first opening spaced apart from the vertical post in a first direction, and a second opening spaced apart from the vertical post in a second direction, the first opening being sized to accommodate a first arm of the user, the second opening being sized to accommodate a second arm of the user (O’Connor, Paragraph 0033; Figure 1 Item 111 & 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the entry ports taught in O’Connor to the viewing shield of Chen, the motivation being to provide a port into the field created by the drape to allow the user to interact with what is inside the field with minimal disturbance to the field’s seal.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen in view of US 5,360,018 hereinafter Sutton Chen.
In regards to Claim 11: Chen teaches all of claim 8 & 1, but does not teach wherein the baseplate is configured to be positioned beneath a head of the patient, beneath a mattress the patient is lying on, or beneath a portion of a bed frame the patient is lying on.
Sutton Chen teaches wherein the baseplate is configured to be positioned beneath a head of the patient, beneath a mattress the patient is lying on, or beneath a portion of a bed frame the patient is lying on (Sutton Chen, Figure 3 Item 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the baseplate configured to slide under a surface taught in Sutton Chen to the viewing shield from Chen, the motivation being to allow the device to take up as little floorspace as possible to allow for maximum mobility around the shield.
In regards to Claim 21: Chen teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a height of the interior space increases from a first end of the interior space proximal to the base to a second end of the interior space distal to the base.
Sutton Chen teaches wherein a height of the interior space increases from a first end of the interior space proximal to the base to a second end of the interior space distal to the base (Sutton Chen, Column 6 Lines 16-20; the device described can be positioned in an upward angle of 45 degrees increasing the height of the space proximally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the increase of interior space height taught in Sutton Chen to the viewing shield of Chen, the motivation being to provide a better viewing angle of the patient when standing next or behind the base post.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen in view of US 5,349,967 hereinafter Tennis.
In regards to Claim 20: Chen teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a width of the interior space increases from a first end of the interior space proximal to the base to a second end of the interior space distal to the base.
Tennis teaches wherein a width of the interior space increases from a first end of the interior space proximal to the base to a second end of the interior space distal to the base (Tennis, Figure 2; The invention shown in figure 2 can be rotated clockwise to resemble a table. This device would have an increase in the width of the interior space in a direction proximal to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the increase in internal area proximal to the user taught in Tennis to the viewing shield taught by Chen, the motivation being to provide the necessary room needed to cover both the head and shoulders of the patient without having excess that could block a user’s mobility around the device.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen in view of 2016/0074268 hereinafter Breegi.
In regards to Claim 26: Chen teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach the device further comprising:
a tube coupled to the flexible drape, the tube having a first end positioned within the interior space, and a second end positioned outside of the interior space; and
a pump positioned outside of the interior space and coupled to the tube such that the tube fluidly couples the pump to the interior space, the pump being configured to be operated to remove substances from within the interior space defined by the shield and the flexible drape via the tube.
Breegi teaches the device further comprising:
a tube coupled to the flexible drape, the tube having a first end positioned within the interior space, and a second end positioned outside of the interior space (Breegi, Figure 17 Item 31; Paragraph 42); and
a pump positioned outside of the interior space and coupled to the tube such that the tube fluidly couples the pump to the interior space, the pump being configured to be operated to remove substances from within the interior space defined by the shield and the flexible drape via the tube (Breegi, Figure 17 Item 70; Paragraph 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the air filtration taught in Breegi to the viewing shield and drape of Chen, the motivation being to provide the infrastructure necessary to filter the air from inside the containment field to prevent the transmission of illnesses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791