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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Examiner points out that the amended claim 1 can be taught by Chen in view of O’Connor in view of Tennis in view of Sutton Chen. Chen is used to teach the basic structure of the base, stand and shield. While O’Connor is used to teach the multiple inlet holes in the drape. Tennis is utilized to establish a shape of the shield that allows for both the head and shoulders. Lastly Sutton Chen is utilized to teach the position of the shield.
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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by US 5,865,182 hereinafter Chen.
In regards to Claim 31: Chen teaches a device for shielding a user from a patient during an intubation procedure or other procedure, the device comprising:
a base including a baseplate (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44; Column 3 Lines 48-50) and a post, the baseplate being coupled to a first end of the post (Chen, Figure 1 Item 40; Column 3 Lines 48-50);
a shield coupled to the base, the shield extending vertically and horizontally relative to the base, the shield being coupled to a second end of the post that is opposite to the first end (Chen, Figure 1 Item 52; Column 4 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 forming a perimeter around the shield and including at least one opening to allow access into the interior space (Chen, Figure 1 Item 52; Column 4 Lines 45-49).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10-12, 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, & 29 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 further view of US 5,349,967 hereinafter Tennis in even further view of 5,360,018 hereinafter Sutton Chen.
In regards to Claim 1: Chen teaches A device for shielding a user from a patient during an intubation procedure or other procedure, the device comprising:
a base including a baseplate (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44; Column 3 Lines 48-50) and a post attached to the baseplate (Chen, Figure 1 Item 40; Column 3 Lines 48-50);
a shield coupled to the post[[ base]], the shield extending vertically and horizontally relative to the [[base]]post (Chen, Figure 1 Item 52; Column 4 Line 44-47); and
a flexible drape coupled to or overlaid on the shield and extending over all sides of the shield such that an enclosed interior space is defined by the shield and the flexible drape that includes the post (Chen, figure 1 Item 52; Column 4 Lines 45-49).
Chen does not teach the flexible drape including at least one having a first opening and a second opening defined therein positioned on opposite sides of the post to allow access into the interior space, wherein the shield is shaped to cause a width and a height of the interior space to increase as the interior space extends away from the post.
O’Connor teaches the flexible drape including at least one having a first opening and a second opening defined therein positioned on opposite sides of the post to allow access into the interior space (O’Connor, 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 first and second openings taught in O’connor to the positionable viewing shield taught by Chen, the motivation being to allow the user to interact with what is inside the field with minimal disturbance to the field’s seal.
Tennis teaches wherein the shield is shaped to cause a width of the interior space to increase as the interior space extends away from the post (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 shield increasing in width as it extends away from the user to the positionable 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.
Sutton Chen teaches wherein the shield is shaped to cause a height of the interior space to increase as the interior space extends away from the post (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 height of the interior space to increasing taught by Sutton Chen to the positionable viewing shield taught by Chen, the motivation being to provide a better viewing angle of the patient when standing next to or behind the base post.
In regards to Claim 2: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the shield is transparent (Chen, Figure 1 Items 14 & 30; Column 4 Lines 3-6).
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the base includes a (Chen Figure 1 Items 10, 46, & 42; Column 3 Lines 31-33 & 48-50).
In regards to Claim 10: A modified Chen teaches the device of claims 1 & 8, and 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 11: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and 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 positioning of the head of the patient taught in Sutton Chen to the positionable shield taught by a modified Chen, the motivation being to allow the device to take up as little floorspace as possible for maximum mobility.
In regards to Claim 12: A modified Chen teaches of the devices of claim 1, and 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, Figures 1 & 2 Item 22; Column 3 Lines 52-56).
In regards to Claim 14: A modified 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 interprets that a person would be able to be positioned in the way describe), and 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 33; 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 positionable shield taught by a modified 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 17: A modified Chen teaches of the device of claim 1, and 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: A modified Chen teaches of the device of claim 1, and 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 20: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and 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.
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 Tennis to the positionable shield of a modified Chen, the motivation being to provide the necessary room need to cover both the head and shoulders of the patient without having excess that could block a user’s mobility around the device.
In regards to Claim 21: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and 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 the interior space height taught in Sutton Chen to the positionable shield taught by a modified Chen, the motivation being to provide a better viewing angle of the patient when standing next to or behind the base post.
In regards to Claim 22: A modified Chen teaches of the device of the claim 1, and 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: A modified Chen teaches of the device of claim 1, and 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 point).
In regards to Claim 25: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the base includes a (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44) and a (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).
In regards to Claim 29: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the device is movably transition able between at least two positions that include:
a collapsed position in which at least one of the baseplate and the post are positioned in the same plane with the shield (Tennis, Figure 2; Column 3 Item 32-39; Examiner interprets the foldable device of tennis to collapse into a position that occupies a single plane), and
an expanded position in which the at least one of the baseplate, the post, and the shield are in a different plane than in the collapsed position (Tennis, Figure 2; Column 3 Item 32-39; Examiner interprets the foldable device of tennis to collapse into a position that occupies a single plane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the foldability of the shield taught in Tennis to the positionable shield taught by a modified Chen, the motivation being to allow for the device to be easily adjustable and stored.
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 US 2002/0045796 hereinafter O'Connor in further view of US 5,349,967 hereinafter Tennis in even further view of 5,360,018 hereinafter Sutton Chen in further view of US 2002/0045796 hereinafter O’Connor in furthest view of US 2018/0087253 hereinafter Dick.
In regards to Claim 3: A modified 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 19).
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 positionable shield of a modified Chen, the motivation being to provide an enclosed field that expands as it drapes across the chest.
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 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: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the shield is positioned at an angle of about 450 relative to horizontal, and wherein the shield includes a cut-out portion forming a handle.
Dick teaches wherein the shield is positioned at an angle of about 450 relative to horizontal, and wherein the shield includes a cut-out portion forming a handle (Dick, Paragraph 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 positionable shield taught by a modified Chen, the motivation being to provide a proper viewing angle of the patient.
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 US 2002/0045796 hereinafter O'Connor in further view of US 5,349,967 hereinafter Tennis in even further view of 5,360,018 hereinafter Sutton Chen in further view of US 2002/0045796 hereinafter O’Connor in furthest view of US 2016/0074268 hereinafter Breegi.
In regards to claim 26: A modified Chen teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach the device 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 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 positionable shield taught be a modified Chen, the motivation being to provide the infrastructure necessary to filter the air from inside the containment field to prevent the transmission of illnesses.
Claim(s) 30 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 further view of US 5,349,967 hereinafter Tennis.
In regards to Claim 30: Chen teaches a device for shielding a user from a patient during an intubation procedure or other procedure, the device comprising:
a base having a baseplate (Chen, Figure 1 Item 44; Column 3 Lines 48-50) that is coupled to a first end of a post (Chen, Figure 1 Item 40; Column 3 Lines 48-50);
a shield extending vertically and horizontally relative to the base, the shield being coupled to a second end of the post that is opposite to the first end (Chen, Figure 1Item 52; Column 4 Lines 45-49); 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 Lines 45-49);
wherein the device is movably transitionable between at least two positions (Tennis, Figure 2; Column 3 Item 32-39; Examiner interprets the foldable device of tennis to collapse into a position that occupies a single plane) that include:
a collapsed position in which the baseplate and the post are positioned in the same plane with the shield (Tennis, Figure 2; Column 3 Item 32-39; Examiner interprets the foldable device of tennis to collapse into a position that occupies a single plane), and
an expanded position in which the baseplate is positioned horizontally, the post is positioned vertically, and the shield extends both vertically and horizontally from the post (Tennis, Figure 2; Column 3 Item 32-39; Examiner interprets the foldable device of tennis to collapse into a position that occupies a single plane).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights