DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 3, 5-11 and14 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 3, 5-8 and 10 as well as the cancellation of claim 15.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings and specification have been amended to reflect inclusion of the cavity member comprising a “first part of finite length 40” and “a second part of finite length 39”. However, the drawings are objected to because reference characters 40 and 20 (Fig. 3) appear to point to the same structure, however 40 is disclosed as the first part of finite length of the cavity member 5, but element 20 is disclosed as being a first part of finite length of the tab member 10. Tab member 10 and cavity member 5 are two different structures per the disclosure, therefore 40 and 20 should not point to the same structure as in newly submitted replacement Fig. 3. Along the same lines, the drawings are objected to because reference characters 39 and 19 (Fig. 3) appear to point to the same structure, however 39 is disclosed as the second part of finite length of the cavity member 5, but element 19 is disclosed as being a second part of finite length of the tab member 10. Tab member 10 and cavity member 5 are two different structures per the disclosure, therefore 39 and 19 should not point to the same structure as in newly submitted replacement Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the amendment on pg. 1 of the specification now recites “A part of the first and second parts of finite length 19, 20, 39, 40 are supporting segments, respectively supporting segments 33 and 34”. It is unclear which of the elements “19, 20, 39, 40” equate to supporting segment 33 and which equate to supporting segment 34 with the specification now amended in this sentence to include “39, 40”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 6, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2 of claim 6, “and second body member” should apparently read –and the second body member--; at line 2 of claim 7, “the body member comprising the latch” should apparently read –the one of the first body member and the second body member that comprises the latch--; at line 2 of claim 8, “closed stated” should apparently read –closed state--; at line 26 of claim 10, “the tab member base end” should apparently read –the base end of the tab member--; and at line 30 of claim 10, “the tab member free end” should apparently read –the free end of the tab member--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. At line 2 of claim 3, it is unclear if “cavity member” is the same as or different than “a cavity member” recited at line 8 of claim 10.
13. Claim 3 at line 2 now recites “the tab member and the cavity member each comprises a part of finite length. Therefore, at line 7 of claim 3, it is unclear which “the part of finite length” is being referenced as line 2 now appears to recite “a part of finite length” for each of the tab member and the cavity member.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. 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.
15. 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
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 February 2026 with respect to the objection to the Drawings have been fully considered, however new grounds of objection are presented above in light of the amendments to the Drawings and the Specification.
17. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 February 2026 with respect to the objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive, however new grounds of objection are presented above in light of the amendments to the Drawings and the Specification.
18. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 5-9 and 15 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 claim 3.
19. Applicant’s arguments filed 23 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of its cancellation.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights