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 1 (figs 1-3) in the reply filed on 3/12/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no evidence of extra burden on the search.” This is not found persuasive because the requirement is based on lack of unity of invention under CT Rule 13.1 and PCT Rule 13.2, not merely search burden.
Groups I and II are directed to distinct locking mechanism configurations and do not share the same or corresponding special technical features. In particular, the claims of Group II recite a plurality of grooves interacting with a limiting pin, which defines a structurally distinct groove/pin interaction arrangement from that of Group I. Accordingly, the claimed groups do not form a single general inventive concept.
Applicant submits that claim 1-19 read on elected Group I. However, claims 2-6 and 11’-15 are drawn to the non-elected locking mechanism configuration of Group II and are withdrawn. Claims 1, 7-11 and 16-19 are examined below as being drawn to elected Group I.
See below objection for explanation of the examiner using 11 and 11’.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 11-19 are objected to because the claims are misnumbered leading to two claims labeled as claim 11. The examiner will examiner the independent claim 11 with the elected group and dependent claim 11 (now 11’ for clarity until amended) will be withdrawn. The examiner is using 11 and 11’ in order to save time and advance prosecution. However, Applicant is required to renumber the claims. Noting that claim 16 does not appear to further limit claim 10 which depends from claim 7. Claim 7 and 16 are essentially identical claims which may be due to the numbering issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,045,104 to Nakamura et al.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura ‘104 discloses an adjustment device 1 , for adjusting a position of a medical device 15, the adjustment device 1 comprises: a first connection portion 3 for hoisting the adjustment device; a second connection portion 2 for connecting the medical device 14 (via portion 4); a rotating shaft 10, wherein the first connection portion 3 and the second connection portion 2 are rotatably connected through the rotating shaft 10 (col. 5, lines 24-26), so that the first connection portion 3 and the second connection portion 2 rotate relative to each other; and a locking mechanism 17; wherein the locking mechanism 17 comprises a locked state and an unlocked state, and in the unlocked state, the first connection portion 3 and/or the second connection portion 2 rotate relative to the rotating shaft 10, to adjust the medical device 15 to a vertical position; in the locked state, the locking mechanism 17 restricts the first connection portion 3 and/or the second connection portion 2 to rotate relative to the rotating shaft 10, to maintain the medical device 15 in a vertical state (col. 5, line 23 to col. 6, line 65).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura ‘104 discloses a medical system, comprises: a medical device 15; and an adjustment device 1, wherein the adjustment device 1 is the adjustment device 1; wherein the adjustment device 1 is connected to the medical device 15 for adjusting a position of the medical device 15; wherein the adjustment device 1 comprises: a first connection portion 3 for hoisting the adjustment device; a second connection portion 2 for connecting the medical device 15 ( via attached link 4); a rotating shaft 10, wherein the first connection portion 3 and the second connection portion 2 are rotatably connected through the rotating shaft 10 (col. 5, lines 24-26), so that the first connection portion 3 and the second connection portion 2 rotate relative to each other; and a locking mechanism 17; wherein the locking mechanism 17 comprises a locked state and an unlocked state, and in the unlocked state, the first connection portion 3 and/or the second connection portion 2 rotate relative to the rotating shaft 10, to adjust the medical device 15 to a vertical position; in the locked state, the locking mechanism 17 restricts the first connection portion 3 and/or the second connection portion 2 to rotate relative to the rotating shaft 10, to maintain the medical device 15 in a vertical state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: note the configuration of the first and second rotating shaft relative to the first and second connection portions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and will be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable. The list of supports is as follows: US-7637466-B2 OR US-11000344-B2 OR US-10813535-B2 OR US-9841660-B1 OR US-5855344-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights