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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein one or both of the particle detection sensor and the air flow velocity sensor are positioned extending from an inner side wall of the surgical operation unit”, however, the limitations pertaining to the air flow velocity sensor are in claim 2, of which claim 3 does not depend from as it currently depends from claim 1, of which is silent on any air flow velocity sensor. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, & 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melles (US 2006/0149120), in view of Breegi (US 2019/0380901).
Regarding claim 1, Melles (US 2006/0149120) shows a surgical operation unit comprising:
a front side (2, Fig. 1) and an air flow unit (40, Fig. 3), the air flow unit being provided with a filter unit (60a/60b, Fig. 8) for filtering air entering the air flow unit during operation (¶0059 – the filter unit 60A/60B is for filtering air entering the air flow unit during operation), the front side being provided with at least one opening (16, Fig. 12) and a cover (22, Fig. 7), covering at least part of the opening (Fig. 7), the air flow unit comprising at least one air outlet opening (48, Fig. 3/7) for directing an air flow from the air flow unit over the cover into a clean air area (10, Fig. 7), and a location downstream from the at least one air outlet opening (Fig. 7 – a location exists that is downstream from the at least one air outlet opening).
However, Melles lacks showing a particle detection sensor positioned downstream from the at least one air outlet opening, and
a control unit connected to the particle detection sensor and arranged to process a sensor signal received from the particle detection sensor.
Breegi (US 2019/0380901), a mobile operation environment, is in the same field of endeavor as Melles which is a mobile operating environment.
Breegi teaches a particle detection sensor (¶0015 / ¶0091, Lines 14-17 – the control unit 17 comprises of sensors, of which one can be for measuring airborne particle content, or a particle detection sensor) positioned downstream from the at least one air outlet opening (¶0091, Lines 22-24 – the particle detection sensor of the control unit 17 is downstream from the at least one air outlet opening of the inlet of the control unit 17), and
a control unit (17, ¶0015 / ¶0091, Lines 14-17) connected to the particle detection sensor (¶0015) and arranged to process a sensor signal received from the particle detection sensor (¶0015/0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified downstream from the at least one air outlet opening of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the particle detection sensor and control unit of Breegi, which would have provided a control system which functions to control a microenvironment of the contained space, regulating temperature, humidity, gas composition, and light (¶0007, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except comprising an air flow velocity sensor.
Breegi teaches comprising an air flow velocity sensor (¶0015/0095, Lines 10-13 – the airflow sensor measures the total flow of fresh air and recirculated air).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the airflow velocity sensor of Breegi, which would have provided a control system which functions to control a microenvironment of the contained space, regulating temperature, humidity, gas composition, and light (¶0007, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including further comprising an operation area adjacent to the cover and in the clean air area (Fig. 7 – the operation area is the area in the clean air area 10 in which the person 14 is standing, performing said operation), and an air flow towards the operation area (Fig. 7).
However, Melles lacks showing wherein the particle detection sensor is positioned in an air flow towards the operation area.
Breegi teaches wherein the particle detection sensor (¶0015 / ¶0091, Lines 14-17 – the control unit 17 comprises of sensors, of which one can be for measuring airborne particle content, or a particle detection sensor) is positioned in an air flow towards the operation area (16, ¶0091, Lines 14-24 – the airflow through the particle detection sensor occurs within the control unit 17, of which air flow passes on its way towards the operation area 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the airflow towards the operation area of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the particle detection sensor of Breegi, which would have provided a control system which functions to control a microenvironment of the contained space, regulating temperature, humidity, gas composition, and light (¶0007, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 5 including further comprising an instrument table area (Fig. 4) adjacent to the operation area and in the clean air area (Fig. 4/7 – the instrument table area is the area in and around element 68, which is an operation bed where instruments can be held, is located adjacent to the operation area, in the clean air area 10), and an air flow towards the instrument table area (Fig. 7).
However, Melles lacks showing wherein the particle detection sensor is positioned in an air flow towards the instrument table area.
Breegi teaches wherein the particle detection sensor (¶0015 / ¶0091, Lines 14-17 – the control unit 17 comprises of sensors, of which one can be for measuring airborne particle content, or a particle detection sensor) is positioned in an air flow towards the area (16, ¶0091, Lines 14-24 – the airflow through the particle detection sensor occurs within the control unit 17, of which air flow passes on its way towards the operation area 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the airflow towards the instrument table area of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the particle detection sensor of Breegi, which would have provided a control system which functions to control a microenvironment of the contained space, regulating temperature, humidity, gas composition, and light (¶0007, Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the operation area and a distance perpendicular to the front side (Fig. 7).
However, Melles lacks showing further comprising an indicator element configured to provide an indication of the operation area as a distance perpendicular to the front side.
Breegi teaches an indicator element (26, Fig. 2B/4B) configured to provide an indication of the operation area as a distance perpendicular to a side (21, Fig. 4B – the indicator element 26 is configured to provide an indication of the operation area 10 as a distance perpendicular to a side 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front side of the device of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the indicator element of Breegi, which would provide an expandable, portable, lightweight, and inexpensive means to expand and measure the expansion of the operating area (¶0003).
Regarding claim 11, Melles shows wherein the cover is a drape (¶0014) attached to an upper rim (23, Fig. 7 – the cover 22 is a drape that is attached to an upper rim at the at least one opening of the front side of the surgical operation unit via an upper side rim of element 23) of the at least one opening in the front side of the surgical operation unit (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Melles shows wherein the cover is attached to one or two side rims (23, Fig. 7) of the at least one opening in the front side of the surgical operation unit (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Melles shows wherein the cover is provided with a plurality of reinforced attachment edges (¶0041, Lines 11-14, Fig. 7 – the cover 22 is suspended from a hanging means which is a series of hooks, a clamping rail, rings, or the like, of which the Examiner is taking the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that for something to be suspended by a hook, the item being suspended requires to have a point in which the element 23 is to engage the cover 22; that being a series of apertures, or slots, along the length of the cover 22, for which the hanging means 23 engages), and the front side is provided with slots (23, Fig. 7 – the cover comprises of apertures, or slots, arranged along the front side of the cover 22 in a horizontal orientation which engage with the hanging means 23) adapted to accommodate the plurality of reinforced attachment edges (¶0041, Lines 11-14, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Melles shows wherein the cover is provided with an operation area opening (70, ¶0054, Lines 7-11).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melles (US 2006/0149120), in view of Breegi (US 2019/0380901), in further view of Shelton et al (US 2024/0081611), hereinafter referred to as Shelton.
Regarding claim 3, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including an inner side wall of the surgical operation unit (Fig. 7 – the person 14 is facing the inner side wall of the surgical operation unit).
However, Melles lacks showing wherein one or both of the particle detection sensor and the air flow velocity sensor are positioned extending from an inner side wall of the surgical operation unit.
Shelton (US 2024/0081611), a surgical device for regulating airflow, is in the same field of endeavor as Melles which is a surgical device for regulating airflow.
Shelton teaches wherein one or both of the particle detection sensor (50838 / 50852, Fig. 23) and the air flow velocity sensor are positioned extending from a location of the unit (50838 / 50852, Fig. 23 – the particle detection sensors 50838 and 50852 both extend from their relative locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner side wall of the surgical operation unit of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the particle detection sensor of Shelton, which would provide a means for detecting the size of particulates within an environment involving smoke (¶0411).
Regarding claim 4, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 3 including a direction parallel to the front side (Fig. 3 – the direction parallel to the front side can be seen in Fig. 3 as a horizontal direction along the face of the device).
However, Melles lacks showing wherein the particle detection sensor is positioned adjustable along a direction parallel to the front side.
Shelton teaches wherein the particle detection sensor (50838 / 50852, Fig. 23) is positioned adjustable along a direction parallel to the left-hand side of the device (50838 / 50852, Fig. 23, ¶0413 – elements 50828 and 50852 are both particle detection sensors, of which, particle sensor 50852 can be alternately located as pictured in Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the front side of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the front side and particle sensor of Shelton, which would provide a means for detecting the size of particulates within an environment involving smoke (¶0411).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melles (US 2006/0149120), in view of Breegi (US 2019/0380901), in further view of Kristensson et al (US 2010/0120349), hereinafter referred to as Kristensson.
Regarding claim 7, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 5 except further comprising a light unit arranged to illuminate the clean air area.
Kristensson (US 2010/0120349), an air vent for a medical procedure, is in the same field of endeavor as Melles which is an air vent for a medical procedure.
Kristensson teaches further comprising a light unit (12, Fig. 1) arranged to illuminate the clean air area (1, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the light unit of Kristensson, which would have provided extra visibility during the operating procedure (Fig. 1).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melles (US 2006/0149120), in view of Breegi (US 2019/0380901), in further view of Li (CN112146255).
Regarding claim 8, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except wherein the control unit configured to generate a warning signal if a detected sensor signal is outside an associated sensor threshold range.
Li (CN112146255), a controlled air system, is in the same field of endeavor as Melles which is a controlled air system.
Li teaches wherein the control unit (¶0034) configured to generate a warning signal (¶0005 - alarm) if a detected sensor signal (¶0005 – the pressure signals from the high and low pressure sensors) is outside an associated sensor threshold range (¶0005)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the warning signal and sensor signals of Li, which would alert personnel that an issue has occurred that is reducing the air conditioners efficiency and possibly has already been forcibly shut down, increasing mechanical downtime and reducing occupant comfort (¶0005).
Regarding claim 9, Melles shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 except further comprising a pressure sensor connected to the control unit and configured to measure a pressure difference over the filter unit.
Li teaches a pressure sensor (¶0005) connected to the control unit (¶0005 / 0034) and configured to measure a pressure difference over the filter unit (¶0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Melles to incorporate the teachings of the pressure sensor and filter unit of Li, which would alert personnel that an issue has occurred that is reducing the air conditioners efficiency and possibly has already been forcibly shut down, increasing mechanical downtime and reducing occupant comfort (¶0005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762