DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 30 July 2026. Claims 2,
3, 5-11 and 14 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to
claims 3, 6-8 and 10.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the amendment to the specification is unclear given the following which now recites:
“A part of the first and second parts of finite length 19, 39 are supporting segments, segment 33 [[and 34]]. A part of the first and second parts of finite length 20, 40 are supporting segments supporting segment 34.”
In the first sentence, if elements “19,39” both equate to “second parts of finite length” (as previously disclosed in the specification), it would appear that those reference characters would not follow the phrase “the first and second parts of finite length”. Perhaps there is another interpretation of that sentence that could be clarified.
Similarly, in the second, new sentence, elements “20,40” both equate to “first parts of finite length” (as previously disclosed in the specification) so it would appear that those reference characters would not follow the phrase “the first and second parts of finite length”. Perhaps there is another interpretation of that sentence that could be clarified.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 26 of claim 10, “the tab member base end” should apparently read –the base end of the tab member--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “locking device” in claim 5 (the corresponding structure in the disclosure being a locking pin).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 claim 3, in light of its recitation of the “part of finite length” for each of the tab member and the cavity member (line 2), and the lack of clarity of the amendment to the specification as outlined above, it is unclear how to interpret these recitations in claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-11 and 14 are allowable over the prior art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 2, 5-11 and 14, while the prior art teaches a patient support assembly, comprising: a patient support panel mounted on a pedestal; an extension panel; and a joint assembly releasably connecting the extension panel to the patient support panel, the joint assembly comprising: a first body member coupled to the extension panel; a second body member coupled to the patient support panel; a cavity member delimited by an upper cavity member surface and a lower cavity member surface extending in an engagement direction between a cavity member closed end and a cavity member open end; and a tab member delimited by an upper tab member surface and a lower tab member surface extending in the engagement direction between a tab member base end of the tab member and a tab member free end of the tab member, wherein the first body member comprises one of the cavity member or the tab member, and the second body member comprises the other of the cavity member or the tab member, and wherein one of the first body member and the second body member comprises a latch, and the other of the first body member and the second body member comprises an attachment member, and the second body member comprises the other of the attachment member or the latch, and wherein the first body member is engageable with the second body member by moving the cavity member with respect to the tab member and by latching the attachment member with the latch, the cavity member being moveable over the tab member by translation in the engagement direction up to a locking position in which the latch latches on the attachment member, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a patient support assembly as claimed by Applicant, wherein the latch comprises an abutment part and a latching part, wherein, upon the cavity member being translated over the tab member towards the base end of the tab member, the attachment member abuts the abutment part to switch the latch from an unlatched state to a latched state wherein the latching part latches on to the attachment member, and wherein the latch is biased to be in the unlatched state such that upon the cavity member being translated over the tab member towards the free end of the tab member, the attachment member releases the abutment part to switch the latch from the latched state to the unlatched state.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the objection to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the Drawings.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the objection to the Specification have been fully considered, however new grounds of objection are presented above in light of the amendments to the Drawings and the Specification. An attempt was made to reach Matt Balint on 6 August 2026, and the examiner welcomes contact to expedite resolution.
Applicant’s arguments filed 30 July 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the amendments to the disclosure.
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 CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
