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 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 3, 23-25 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.
In re claim 3, it is unclear what further limiting apparatus would result “wherein the containment unit is configured to trap the aerosol within the confined space so as to facilitate directional flow of the aerosol towards the inlet” are. Would the structure of claim 1 inherently satisfies the “wherein the containment unit is configured to trap the aerosol within the confined space so as to facilitate directional flow of the aerosol towards the inlet”? The Examiner interprets so.
In re claim 23, it is unclear what is the further limiting methods that would result “the procedure is visible from outside of the containment unit to enable a professional who is performing the procedure to see the site so as to perform the procedure within the containment unit” are. Would the method of providing the structure of claim 17 be the only method to allow the outcome of claim 23? If that’s the case, what is the further limiting methods?
Similarly, for claim 24, it is unclear what is the further limiting methods that would result “wherein the site of the procedure is the patient's mouth or teeth and the professional can see inside of the patient's mouth from outside the containment unit” are. Would the method of claim 17 inherently satisfy the limitation “wherein the site of the procedure is the patient's mouth or teeth and the professional can see inside of the patient's mouth from outside the containment unit.” The Examiner interprets so.
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) 1, 6, 7, 17, 19, 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster (US 3,813,092, hereinafter Foster ‘092).
In re claims 1, 17, Foster ‘092 teaches a system for preventing spread of aerosol during a cosmetic, medical or dental procedure, the system comprising: a. a containment unit (fig. 1, 34, 56) configured for positioning over a portion of a patient so as to define a confined space around the portion of the patient (figs1-3, col. 2, lines 48-67; col. 3, lines 1-50), the containment unit comprising: i. a rigid or semi-rigid transparent shield that is bounded by an outer periphery (fig. 1, 34 is bounded by 54; abstract; col. 1, lines 27-35); and ii. a transparent or translucent flexible bib extending from the outer periphery (fig. 1, 58; col. 3, lines 15-23); and b. an inlet configured to be provided within the confined space, wherein the inlet is configured to facilitate evacuation of air from the confined space (col. 3, lines 51-65; abstract, col. 1, lines 55-62).
In re claims 6, 19, Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the bib extends from a majority of the outer periphery (fig. 1, 58 is extended from all side of 54).
In re claim 7, Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the bib extends from at least 75% of the outer periphery (fig. 1, 58 is extended from all side of 54, which is 100% of 54).
In re claim 21. Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the containment unit is positioned over the patient's entire face and neck and at least a portion of the patient's upper torso (fig. 2). Hence, the structure/method is satisfied and that if the structure/method is the same, the outcome is the same. Hence, Foster ‘092 would teach the same that “so as to contain aerosol generated from the procedure which is performed on the patient's mouth.” Applicant has not limited any method or distinguish any method that would result a different outcome.
In re claim 23, Foster ‘092 teaches everything of claim 17, hence, it would read on claim 23.
In re claim 24, Foster ‘092 teaches everything of claim 17 and 23 as show above, hence, it would read on claim 24’s wherein the site of the procedure is the patient's mouth or teeth and the professional can see inside of the patient's mouth from outside the containment unit. Furthermore, Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the containment unit is positioned over the patient's entire face and neck and at least a portion of the patient's upper torso (fig. 2). Hence, the structure/method is satisfied and that if the structure/method is the same, the outcome is the same. Hence, Foster ‘092 would teach the same that “so as to contain aerosol generated from the procedure.”
In re claim 25, Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the containment unit is positioned and configured such that the professional can extend a hand or an instrument into the containment unit by reaching underneath the bib to perform the procedure (fig. 2).
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) 2-3, 8,12-15, 18, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster ‘092 in view of Schoolman (US 4,936,318, hereinafter Schoolman ‘318).
In re claims 2, 18, Foster ‘092 fails to teach a mounting arm that is coupled to the shield to facilitate positioning of the containment unit over the portion of the patient, wherein the mounting arm is movable along at least one plane to adjust positioning of the containment unit.
Schoolman ‘318 teaches a mounting arm that is coupled to the shield to facilitate positioning of the containment unit over the portion of the patient, wherein the mounting arm is movable along at least one plane to adjust positioning of the containment unit (fig. 2, 30, 31; fig. 4, 13; to facilitate hinges 53 and 54 to move at various angles; and 48 for horizontal positioning; col. 5, lines 17-40, lines 65-68, col. 6, lines 1-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
In re claim 3, Foster ‘092 teaches all of claim 1 which the structure need for “wherein the containment unit is configured to trap the aerosol within the confined space so as to facilitate directional flow of the aerosol towards the inlet.” Hence, Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the containment unit is configured to trap the aerosol within the confined space so as to facilitate directional flow of the aerosol towards the inlet; and also teaches wherein the inlet is coupled to a lumen connected to a
Foster ‘092 fails to teach wherein the inlet is coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space.
Schoolman ‘318 teaches wherein the inlet is coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space (col. 6, lines 11-55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
In re claims 8 and 20, Schoolman ‘318 teaches wherein the inlet is coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space (col. 6, lines 11-55). Hence, the method taught by Schoolman ‘318 would result “so as to create a negative pressure zone within the confined space.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
In re claim 12, Schoolman ‘318 teaches further comprising one or more filtration elements in the inlet or downstream from the inlet for trapping particulates or decontaminating the air drawn into the inlet from the confined space (col. 6, lines 40-58).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
In re claims 13, 22, Foster ‘092 teaches wherein the containment unit is positioned over the patient's entire face and neck and at least a portion of the patient's upper torso, (fig. 2). Hence, the structure/method is satisfied and that if the structure/method is the same, the outcome is the same. Hence, Foster ‘092 would teach the same that “so as to contain aerosol generated from the procedure,” but fails to teach wherein the inlet is coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space, thereby evacuating the aerosol.
Schoolman ‘318 teaches wherein the inlet is coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space, thereby evacuating the aerosol (col. 6, lines 11-55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
In re claim 14, Foster ‘092 fails to teach further comprising: c. a mounting arm that is coupled to the shield to facilitate positioning of the containment unit over the portion of the patient, wherein the mounting arm is movable along at least one plane to adjust positioning of the containment unit; and d. one or more filtration elements in the inlet or downstream from the inlet for trapping particulates or decontaminating the air drawn into the inlet from the confined space.
Schoolman ‘318 teaches further comprising: c. a mounting arm that is coupled to the shield to facilitate positioning of the containment unit over the portion of the patient, wherein the mounting arm is movable along at least one plane to adjust positioning of the containment unit (fig. 2, 30, 31; fig. 4, 13; to facilitate hinges 53 and 54 to move at various angles; and 48 for horizontal positioning; col. 5, lines 17-40, lines 65-68, col. 6, lines 1-10); and d. one or more filtration elements in the inlet or downstream from the inlet for trapping particulates or decontaminating the air drawn into the inlet from the confined space (col. 6, lines 40-58).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
In re claim 15, Schoolman ‘318 teaches a chair for supporting a patient undergoing a cosmetic, medical or dental procedure, wherein the chair is coupled to a portion of the system (col. 1, lines 57-66) of claim 2 (see above for claim 2 rejection).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster ‘092 in view of Parissenti (EP 0285700, hereinafter Parissenti ‘700).
In re claim 5, Foster ‘092 teach wherein the shield is made from a polymer (col. 4, lines 15-20, a plastic is a polymer) or glass, but fail to teach the shield is treated or coated with an antifogging material.
Parissenti ‘700 teaches the shield is treated or coated with an antifogging material (col. 2, lines 16-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Parissenti ‘700 in order to increase visibility during surgery.
Claim(s) 9, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster ‘092 in view of Nakajima (US 2015/0072305, hereinafter Nakajima ‘305).
In re claims 9 and 26, Foster ‘092 fails to teach wherein the inlet is a funnel with an outer funnel periphery, wherein the outer funnel periphery has a flat portion.
Nakajima ‘305 teaches wherein the inlet is a funnel with an outer funnel periphery and the outer funnel periphery has a flat portion (fig. 3, 0045, 17 is flat, 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Nakajima ‘305 in order to prevent the hood from slip off from a working location.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster ‘092 in view of Schoolman ‘318, and still further in view of Chua et al. (US 2017/0265957, hereinafter Chua ‘957).
In re claim 28, Foster ‘092 teaches a kit for preventing spread of aerosol during a cosmetic, medical or dental procedure comprising: a. a rigid or semi-rigid transparent polymer or glass shield (col. 4, lines 15-20, a plastic is a polymer) that is bounded by an outer periphery, wherein the outer periphery is configured to have a bib secured thereto (fig. 1, 34 is bounded by 54; abstract; col. 1, lines 27-35, fig. 1, 58; col. 3, lines 15-23); b. a transparent or translucent flexible
Foster ‘092 fails to teach c. an inlet configured to be placed within the confined space and coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space; and d. a mounting arm configured to be coupled to the shield to facilitate positioning of the containment unit over the portion of the patient, wherein the mounting arm is movable along at least one plane to adjust positioning of the containment unit.
Schoolman ‘318 teaches c. an inlet configured to be placed within the confined space and coupled to a lumen connected to a vacuum source to provide suction evacuation of air from the confined space (col. 6, lines 11-55); and d. a mounting arm configured to be coupled to the shield to facilitate positioning of the containment unit over the portion of the patient, wherein the mounting arm is movable along at least one plane to adjust positioning of the containment unit (fig. 2, 30, 31; fig. 4, 13; to facilitate hinges 53 and 54 to move at various angles; and 48 for horizontal positioning; col. 5, lines 17-40, lines 65-68, col. 6, lines 1-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage.
Foster ‘092 and Schoolman ’318 fail to teach polymer bib.
Chua ‘957 teaches polymer bib (0030).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Foster ‘092 to include the features of Schoolman ‘318 in order to provide a protective apparatus that incorporates both physical and vacuum barriers, and to provide such an apparatus that is portable and easily adjusted to fit the requirements of each different usage, and to include the features of Chua ‘957 in order to make the bib more durable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, KEITH M RAYMOND can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798