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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a serious search burden does not exist between the restricted groups a s any search would rely on overlapping prior art . This is not found persuasive because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter , require searching different electronic resources, and employing different search querie s . T hus , an examination burden exists. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 5 - 7 and 16-17 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. Regarding claims 5 and 7, t he term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim s indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim s , 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. Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “ wherein the first electrode is integrated into a headband, cap, visor and/or collar ” and it is not clear whether the electrode is integrated into one of the embodiments selected from the list as recited (as indicated by the term “or”) or whether the first electrode is integrated into each of the embodiments as listed. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the former. Regarding claim 16, claim limitation “device for supplying disinfectant” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 17 is also rejected due to dependency on claim 16. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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) 1-5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen ( US 6513529 B1 ) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Du ( CN 111228671 A ). Regarding c laim 1, Kamen teaches a system for protecting medical personnel and/or a patient from airborne pathogens in a surgical environment [abstract] , comprising: a first electrode (Fig. 1, ionizer 26 understood to function as an electrode) ; a second electrode configured for attachment to the patient (Fig. 1, shield 16 surrounds surgical area on patient ) ; and a first generator for applying voltage to the electrodes (Fig. 1, power supply 30 and charge supply 34 ) , wherein the first and/or second electrode is configured to ionize the airborne pathogens outside the body of the patient (col 3, lines 40-50, ionizer 26 charges airborne contaminants ) , and wherein the first and second electrodes have the same polarity when voltage is applied (electrode 26 imparts net electrical charge to particles that is the same polarity of shield 16 = electrodes understood to be same polarity, col 3, lines 45-50) . Kamen teaches wherein the first electrode (Fig. 1, 26) is configured to charge incoming air (28) through ionizing filter (22) but does not teach wherein the electrode is configured for attachment to the medical personnel . One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with charging exhaled contaminants exhausted from the medical personnel (14), motivating one to turn towards Du. Du teaches a plasma sterilization mask configured to sterilize air [abstract] with a layer mesh filter (Fig. 1, 11) and a plasma sheet (Fig. 3, 20) comprising an inner electrode (Fig. 3, 21) and outer electrode (Fig. 3, 23) configured to generate positive and negative ions (page 3, para 4) for decontaminating pathogens in the breathing region of the user (page 2, para 2). The electrodes are understood to be charging particles entering and exiting the breathing region of the mask and are the polarity of the particles are understood to be controllable by altering the voltage supplied to the electrodes via the control module 30 (page 3, para 10). Du is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the sterilization arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Kamen to include the respiratory mask (to be worn by the medical personnel) as taught by Du to charge pathogens exhaled from the medical user with the same polarity of the second electrode (Kamen, shield 16) and further prevent the contaminants from entering the area enclosed by the second electrode and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(A). Regarding c laim 2, the Examiner notes that claim 2 will be given no patentable weight as the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims . See MPEP 2115. For examination purposes, the system as taught by Modified Kamen is understood of being capable of protecting medical personnel and/or a patient from viruses in a surgical environment . Regarding claim 3 , the Examiner notes that claim 3 will be given no patentable weight as the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. For examination purposes, the system as taught by Modified Kamen is understood of being capable of protecting medical personnel and/or a patient from SARS-CoV-2 in a surgical environment. Regarding claim 4 , Modified Kamen teaches t he system of claim 1, wherein the first and second electrodes have negative polarity when voltage is applied (Kamen, electrodes understood to be capable of being negatively charged, col 3, col 29-31, 45-50) . Regarding claim 5 , Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is configured for attachment to or near the head of the medical personnel (Du, first electrode is contained within mask 10, which is configured to be attached to a user) . Regarding claim 7 , Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second electrode is configured for attachment at or near a surgical site on the patient (Kamen, Fig. 1, shield 16 attached to surgical site of a patient) . Regarding claim 14 , Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a filter device (Kamen, Fig. 1, ionizing filter 22) . Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen (US 6513529 B1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Du ( CN 111228671 A ) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fulbrook ( US 20220202982 A1 ). Regarding claim 6, Modified Kamen teaches t he system of claim 1, wherein the first electrode is integrated into a mask (Du, Fig. 1, mask 10) but does not teach wherein the first electrode is incorporated into a headband, cap, visor and/or collar. Fulbrook teaches an ultraviolet ventilation face shield (understood to be a visor) configured to neutralize pathogens entering a user’s breathing space [abstract] wherein the face shield comprises UV-C emitters to inactivate viruses and prevent harmful exposure to the user [0018]. Fulbrook is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Kamen to include the face shield as taught by Fulbrook to provide a physical barrier of preventing the pathogens exhausted by a user from entering a surgical area and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding claim 13, Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the system further comprising a device for emitting UV-C radiation. Fulbrook teaches an ultraviolet ventilation face shield (understood to be a visor) configured to neutralize pathogens entering a user’s breathing space [abstract] wherein the face shield comprises UV-C emitters to inactivate viruses and prevent harmful exposure to the user [0018]. Fulbrook is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Kamen to include the face shield as taught by Fulbrook since Fulbrook teaches the face shield to inactivate pathogens with UV-C and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G). Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen (US 6513529 B1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Du ( CN 111228671 A ) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faries Jr. et al. (hereinafter “ Faries ”) ( US 20030231990 A1 ). Regarding claim 8, Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the second electrode surrounds a surgical site on a patient ( Kamen, Fig. 1, shield 16 surrounds surgical area on patient) but does not teach wherein the second electrode is integrated into a surgical drape. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with further maintaining a sterile field around the surgical region of the patient and how to ensure the ionizing electrodes do not interfere with surgical operations, motivating one to turn towards Faries . Faries teaches a system for determining the sterility of a disposable item before use with a medical device [0009] including a drape (17) configured to form a sterile field around an area and a sensing device comprising a pair of electrodes (92 and 94), wherein the electrodes are configured to be secured to the drape to protect them from sharp objects within the bin [0034]. Faries is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the sterilization arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Kamen to include the sterile drape as taught by Faries and to secure the second electrode as taught by Modified Kamen to said drape since Faries teaches the drape to maintain a sterile field around an area and teaches the electrode to be secured to said drape to protect it from sharp objects (understood to include scalpels and other sharps used during surgery) [0034] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143 (I)(G). Regarding claim 9 , Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the second electrode surrounds a surgical site on a patient (Kamen, Fig. 1, shield 16 surrounds surgical area on patient) but does not teach wherein the second electrode is integrated into a surgical drape in the region of the surgical opening. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with further maintaining a sterile field around the surgical region of the patient and how to ensure the ionizing electrodes do not interfere with surgical operations, motivating one to turn towards Faries . Faries teaches a system for determining the sterility of a disposable item before use with a medical device [0009] including a drape (17) configured to form a sterile field around an area and a sensing device comprising a pair of electrodes (92 and 94), wherein the electrodes are configured to be secured to the drape to protect them from sharp objects within the bin [0034]. Faries is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the sterilization arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Kamen to include the sterile drape as taught by Faries in the region of the surgical opening and to secure the second electrode as taught by Modified Kamen to said drape since Faries teaches the drape to maintain a sterile field around an area and teaches the electrode to be secured to said drape to protect it from sharp objects (understood to include scalpels and other sharps used during surgery) [0034] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143 (I)(G). Claim (s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen (US 6513529 B1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Du ( CN 111228671 A ), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou ( CN 209075214 U ). Babini et al. ( US 9943355 B2 ). Regarding claim 10, Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1, comprising a plurality of suction channels for directing charged pathogens away from a surgical site (Kamen, suction applied to channels 80 via hose 82 creates a net flow away from incision 18, col 5, lines 10-16) but does not explicitly teach an aspirator for aspirating the ionized airborne pathogens . Zhou teaches a decontamination system comprising an isolating device (Fig. 1, 2) and a bed (1) configured to hold a patient [abstract], wherein the isolating device further comprises a decontamination system (22). Zhou teaches the decontamination system to vacuum and sterilize exhaled gas from the patient (decontamination system understood to be an aspirator, page 4, para 5-6) to protect medical staff from infection. Zhou further teaches wherein the decontamination system (22) co ntains a plurality of electrostatically charged filters to attract and sterilize pathogens from the air (page 5, para 2) and is detachably coupled to the bed (page 4, para 5-6) . Zhou is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surgical bed as taught by Kamen to include the mountable decontamination system as taught by Zhou since Zhou teaches the decontamination device to protect medical staff from infection by electrostatically aspirating exhaled gas from a patient (page 4, para 5-6) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G). Regarding claim 11, Modified Kamen teaches the system of claim 1 0 , comprising an aspirator for aspirating the ionized airborne pathogens ( Zhou, aspirator = decontamination system 22, page 4, para 5-6, page 5, para 2 ) wherein the aspirator is configured for being supplied with voltage (Zhou, decontamination system 22 is electrically coupled to a control module which controls the working state of the device = understood to be connected to a voltage supply). Regarding claim 12, the Examiner points to MPEP 2114 (II) which states “A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim . ” Therefore, the limitation “ wherein the aspirator, when voltage is applied to it, has a polarity opposite to the polarity of the first and/or second electrodes ” is considered to be an intended use of the apparatus and will not be given patentable weight; thus, Modified Kamen teaches the structural limitation of a n aspirato r being supplied with a voltage. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen (US 6513529 B1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Du (CN 111228671 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babini et al. ( US 9943355 B2 ). Regarding claim 1 5 , Modified Kamen teaches t he system of claim 1 4 , further comprising a filter device (Kamen, Fig. 1, ionizing filter 22) but does not wherein the filter device is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter and/or ultra low penetrating air (ULPA) filter. Babini teaches a smoke evacuation system for surgical procedures [abstract] including a smoke evacuation tube (Fig. 1, 12) in communication with a filter cartridge (18) that may be a HEPA or an ultra low penetrating air (ULPA) filter configured to filter the smoke from around a surgical site (col 3, lines 22-60) and return the air back to the operating room (col 3, lines 36-42). Babini is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purification devices for surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter as taught by Modified Kamen to include the HEPA and ULPA filter as taught by Babini to increase the efficiency of air purification performed on the air being supplied to the operating room and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Clai m(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamen (US 6513529 B1) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/14/2023) in view of Du ( CN 111228671 A ), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Armour et al. ( US 9615884 B2 ) Regarding claim 16, Modified Kamen teaches t he system of claim 1 but does teach wherein the system further compris es a device for supplying disinfectant. Armour teaches a system for reducing infection agents at a sterile site [abstract] such as tissue (col 27, lines 65-67), wherein disinfectants such as hydrogen peroxide may be pumped (understood to be a device for supplying disinfectant) near the sterile site to disinfect said infectious agents (col 28, lines 12-23). Armour is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to disinfection apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Kamen to include the disinfectant pump for pumping hydrogen peroxide gas as taught by Armour since Armour teaches the pump to disinfectant pathogens near the sterile site (col 28, lines 12-23). See MPEP 2143 (I)(G). Regarding claim 17 , the Examiner notes that claim 17 will be given no patentable weight as the inclusion of a material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. For examination purposes, the system as taught by Modified Kamen teaches t he system of claim 16 wherein the disinfectant is H 2 O 2 and/or formaldehyde ( Armour , disinfectant is hydrogen peroxide, col 28, lines 12-23) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4611 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Maris Kessel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7698 . 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.S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758 /MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758