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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 2/24/2026, to claims 4, 12, 14, 20, 22-23 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant added claims 25-27.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, 20-27 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12, 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
New grounds of rejections have been applied to all pending claims, with the previous indication of allowability being withdrawn. With further consideration of the references of Schloesser and Soto a 103 rejection has been made on the claims.
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 26 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the [flexion/extension]”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Will be read as -the extension and flexion of the neck-.
Claim 26 recites “allow for the rotation of the head of the patient and the [flexion/extension] ... without allowing the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient” wherein the usage of the brackets around flexion/extension and ellipses is unclear structure to the claims. For examining purposes will be read as - allow for the rotation of the head of the patient and the extension and flexion of the neck without allowing the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13, 20, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloesser (US 20070032795 A1) in view of Soto (US 20120124747 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Schloesser discloses a head stabilization system (Fig 3), comprising:
a head restraint mechanism configured to be operatively disposed on a patient support device and including a generally vertically upstanding arcuate tilt guide (Annotated Fig 3, head restraint mechanism, on support, with tilt guide);
a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient (Annotated Fig. 3, upper surface of the head restraint mechanism is engaging the head of the user) and is selectively repositionable generally vertically relative to the tilt guide (Fig 3-Fig 4, vertical adjustment via tilt guide),
wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively allow lateral flexion of a neck of the patient (Fig 10-Fig 11, lateral flexion shown), lateral rotation of the head of the patient (Fig 7-Fig 8, lateral rotation shown), and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 3-Fig 4, tilting of the neck results in some level of extension and flexion) (Further see Diagram 1 and [0046] wherein the dimensional movements are indicated in axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
778
1126
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3, Schloesser
Schloesser does not disclose a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient; wherein the head harness is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism, wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to stabilize the head harness relative to the patient support device.
However, Soto teaches an analogous head stabilization system (Fig 1), comprising: an analogous head restraint mechanism 112 configured to be operatively disposed on a patient support device (Fig 9, restraint 112); and an analogous head harness 12 (Fig. 4-6) configured to engage a head of a patient including engaging a chin/jaw region, a forehead region, and a rear region of the head of the patient (Fig 6, harness 12 shown engaging a jaw, forehead, and rear);
wherein the head harness 12 is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism 112 (Fig 7-8, attachment of the harness 12 to the restraint via hook and loop 120 on the head restrain mechanism and the hook and loop 30 on the head harness 12 [0045-0047, 0017]), and wherein the head restraint mechanism 112 is configured to stabilize the head harness 12 relative to the patient support device and is configured to selectively allow lateral flexion of a neck of the patient, lateral rotation of the head of the patient, and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 1, series of ball joints of head restraint allows for locking and stabilizing of the head and would allow for at least moderate movement in all of lateral flexion of a neck of the patient, lateral rotation of the head of the patient, and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the upper surface of the head restraint mechanism of Schloesser with the coupler 120 and provided for attachment therein the head harness 12 as taught by Soto in order to provide a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient; wherein the head harness is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism, wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to stabilize the head harness relative to the patient support device, thus providing an improved head fixation/positioner with padding that is applicable to a head of a user for increased comfort and stability (Soto [0003]).
With respect to claim 2, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Soto as combined further teaches wherein the head harness 12 engages a chin/jaw region, a forehead region, and a rear region of the head of the patient (Soto Fig 4-6, harness 12 shown engaging a jaw, forehead, and rear).
With respect to claim 3, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Schloesser further discloses wherein the head stabilization system further comprises a swivel arm configured to be operatively disposed on the patient support device (Schloesser Annotated Fig 3, swivel arm); wherein the head restraint mechanism is coupled to the swivel arm (Schloesser Annotated Fig 3, restraint mechanism coupled to swivel arm via tilt guide), and wherein pivoting the swivel arm selectively repositions the head restraint mechanism relative to the patient support device (Schloesser Annotated Fig 3, rotation shown in Fig 10-11).
With respect to claim 5, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 1.
Schloesser as combined with Soto discloses wherein the head harness and the head restraint mechanism are configured to stabilize the head of the patient with the patient in a generally supine position (Schloesser Fig. 1, supine shown).
With respect to claim 11, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 1.
Schloesser discloses wherein the head harness and the head restraint mechanism are constructed substantially from materials that generally do not interfere with medical imaging modalities (Schloesser [0036]).
With respect to claim 12, Schloesser discloses a head stabilization system (Fig 3), comprising:
a head restraint mechanism configured to be operatively disposed on a patient support device (Annotated Fig 3, head restraint mechanism, on support);
a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient (Annotated Fig. 3, upper surface of the head restraint mechanism is engaging the head of the user) and is selectively repositionable generally vertically relative to the tilt guide (Fig 3-Fig 4, vertical adjustment via tilt guide),
wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively allow lateral flexion of a neck of the patient (Fig 10-Fig 11, lateral flexion shown), lateral rotation of the head of the patient (Fig 7-Fig 8, lateral rotation shown), and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 3-Fig 4, tilting of the neck results in some level of extension and flexion) (Further see Diagram 1 and [0046] wherein the dimensional movements are indicated in axis),
wherein the head harness and the head restraint mechanism are configured to stabilize the head of the patient in a plurality of positions (Fig. 3-12) including at least a supine position (Fig. 3, head of the user is in a supine position) and a lateral position (Fig. 11, head in a lateral position).
Schloesser does not disclose a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient including engaging a chin/jaw region, a forehead region, and a rear region of the head of the patient; wherein the head harness is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism, wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to stabilize the head harness relative to the patient support device.
However, Soto teaches an analogous head stabilization system (Fig 1), comprising: an analogous head restraint mechanism 112 configured to be operatively disposed on a patient support device (Fig 9, restraint 112); and an analogous head harness 12 (Fig. 4-6) configured to engage a head of a patient including engaging a chin/jaw region, a forehead region, and a rear region of the head of the patient (Fig 6, harness 12 shown engaging a jaw, forehead, and rear);
wherein the head harness 12 is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism 112 (Fig 7-8, attachment of the harness 12 to the restraint via hook and loop 120 on the head restrain mechanism and the hook and loop 30 on the head harness 12 [0045-0047, 0017]), and wherein the head restraint mechanism 112 is configured to stabilize the head harness 12 relative to the patient support device and is configured to selectively allow lateral flexion of a neck of the patient, lateral rotation of the head of the patient, and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 1, series of ball joints of head restraint allows for locking and stabilizing of the head and would allow for at least moderate movement in all of lateral flexion of a neck of the patient, lateral rotation of the head of the patient, and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the upper surface of the head restraint mechanism of Schloesser with the coupler 120 and provided for attachment therein the head harness 12 as taught by Soto in order to provide a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient; wherein the head harness is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism, wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to stabilize the head harness relative to the patient support device, thus providing an improved head fixation/positioner with padding that is applicable to a head of a user for increased comfort and stability (Soto [0003]).
With respect to claim 13, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 12.
Schloesser further discloses a swivel arm configured to be operatively disposed on the patient support device (Schloesser Annotated Fig 3, swivel arm); wherein the head restraint mechanism is coupled to the swivel arm (Schloesser Annotated Fig 3, restraint mechanism coupled to swivel arm via tilt guide), and wherein pivoting the swivel arm selectively repositions the head restraint mechanism relative to the patient support device (Schloesser Annotated Fig 3, rotation shown in Fig 10-11).
With respect to claim 20, Schloesser discloses a method of stabilizing a head of a patient relative to a patient support device (Annotated Fig 3, head restraint mechanism on support),
the method comprising:
placing the patient on the patient support device (Fig 3);
positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device by selectively allowing lateral flexion of a neck of the patient (Fig 10-Fig 11, lateral flexion shown), lateral rotation of the head of the patient (Fig 7-Fig 8, lateral rotation shown), and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 3-Fig 4, tilting of the neck results in some level of extension and flexion) (Further see Diagram 1 and [0046] wherein the dimensional movements are indicated in axis); and
securing the head restraint mechanism ([0058]).
Schloesser does not disclose on attaching a head harness to a head of a patient, attaching the head harness to a head restraint mechanism after attaching the head harness to the head of the patient.
However, Soto teaches an analogous head stabilization system (Fig 1), comprising: an analogous head restraint mechanism 112 configured to be operatively disposed on a patient support device (Fig 9, bracket 114); and an analogous head harness 12 (Fig. 4-6) configured to engage a head of a patient including engaging a chin/jaw region, a forehead region, and a rear region of the head of the patient (Fig 6, harness 12 shown engaging a jaw, forehead, and rear);
wherein the head harness 12 is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism 114 (Fig 7-8, attachment of the harness 12 to the restraint 114 via hook and loop 120 on the head support 112 which is attached to the head restraint mechanism 114 and the hook and loop 30 on the head harness 12 [0045-0047, 0017]), and wherein the head restraint mechanism 112 is configured to stabilize the head harness 12 relative to the patient support device and is configured to selectively allow lateral flexion of a neck of the patient, lateral rotation of the head of the patient, and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 1, series of ball joints of head restraint allows for locking and stabilizing of the head and would allow for at least moderate movement in all of lateral flexion of a neck of the patient, lateral rotation of the head of the patient, and extension and flexion of the neck of the patient),
wherein Soto provides for the method of attaching the head harness 12 to a head of a patient (Fig. 4-6), attaching the head harness 12 to the head restraint mechanism 112 after attaching the head harness 12 to the head of the patient (Fig. 4-7 and [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the upper surface of the head restraint mechanism of Schloesser with the coupler 120 and provided for attachment therein the head harness 12, and the methodology of “attaching a head harness to a head of a patient, attaching the head harness to a head restraint mechanism after attaching the head harness to the head of the patient” as taught by Soto in order to provide a head harness configured to engage a head of a patient; wherein the head harness is releasably attachable to and at least partially supported by the head restraint mechanism, wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to stabilize the head harness relative to the patient support device, thus providing an improved head fixation/positioner with padding that is applicable to a head of a user for increased comfort and stability (Soto [0003]).
With respect to claim 24, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 20.
Schloesser in view of Soto does not disclose wherein the head harness is attached to the head restraint mechanism using a harness connector assembly, wherein positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device includes loosening the harness connector assembly to allow for the rotation of the head of the patient without allowing the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient.
Soto further teaches wherein the head harness 12 is attached to the head restraint mechanism 114 using a harness connector assembly 116 (Fig. 1 and 9), wherein positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device 212 (Fig. 1 and 9) includes loosening the harness connector assembly 116 to allow for the rotation of the head of the patient (Fig. 1 and 9, a lock 117 may be loosed thus enabling head rotation) without allowing the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig. 1 and 9, the ball and socket joints do not explicitly disclose or discuss lateral flexion of the neck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the harness connector assembly 116 taught by Soto for the attachment between the head harness and the head restraint mechanism for Schloesser as combined with Soto for providing further adjustability of the user’s head position relative to a head harness (Soto Fig. 1 and 9, [0044]), wherein as combined the lateral flexion ability of Schloesser is a separate mechanism from this thus as combined the loosening the of the knob 117 of the harness connector assembly 116 would not allow the lateral flexion of the swivel of Schloesser (Schloesser Fig. 1-12, swivel movement separate mechanism as combined for providing the lateral flexion movement).
With respect to claim 25, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 24.
Schloesser in view of Soto discloses wherein positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device further includes unlocking a lock assembly separate from the harness connector assembly to allow for the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient without allowing for the rotation of the head of the patient (Schloesser [0036] Fig. 1-12, the track for providing lateral flexion movement is separate and thus locked/unlocked into position separately and directly from the harness connector assembly 116 as combined, head rotation is not allowed when only swiveling in the track).
With respect to claim 26, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 20.
Schloesser in view of Soto does not disclose wherein the head harness is attached to the head restraint mechanism using a harness connector assembly, wherein positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device includes loosening the harness connector assembly to allow for the rotation of the head of the patient and the extension flexion of the neck of the user without allowing the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient.
Soto further teaches wherein the head harness 12 is attached to the head restraint mechanism 114 using a harness connector assembly 116 (Fig. 1 and 9), wherein positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device 212 (Fig. 1 and 9) includes loosening the harness connector assembly 116 to allow for the rotation of the head of the patient (Fig. 1 and 9, a lock 117 may be loosed thus enabling head rotation and flexion/extension of the neck from the ball and sockets) without allowing the lateral flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig. 1 and 9, the ball and socket joints do not explicitly disclose or discuss lateral flexion of the neck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the harness connector assembly 116 taught by Soto for the attachment between the head harness and the head restraint mechanism for Schloesser as combined with Soto for providing further adjustability of the user’s head position relative to a head harness (Soto Fig. 1 and 9, [0044]), wherein as combined the lateral flexion ability of Schloesser is a separate mechanism from this thus as combined the loosening the of the knob 117 of the harness connector assembly 116 would not allow the lateral flexion of the swivel of Schloesser (Schloesser Fig. 1-12, swivel movement separate mechanism as combined for providing the claimed lateral flexion).
With respect to claim 27, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the invention of claim 20.
Schloesser as combined with Soto further discloses wherein positioning the head of the patient relative to the patient support device includes selectively repositioning the head harness relative to a vertically upstanding arcuate tilt guide of the head restraint mechanism (See Annotated Fig. 3 of Schloesser wherein there is a vertically upstanding arcuate tilt guide that is selectively used for vertical repositioning of the head/neck flexion and extension movement).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloesser (US 20070032795 A1) in view of Soto (US 20120124747 A1), and further in view of Kantrowitz (US 6,199,233).
With respect to claim 4, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the head stabilization system of claim 1.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on wherein the head stabilization system further comprises a patient support plate configured to be secured to the patient support device and to receive at least a portion of the patient thereon; wherein the head restraint mechanism is disposed on the patient support plate.
Kantrowitz teaches an analogous adjustable head stabilization system (Fig 1) wherein the head stabilization system further comprises a patient support plate configured to be secured to the patient support device and to receive at least a portion of a patient thereon (Fig 2, support plate 26 attached to support device 22); wherein the head restraint mechanism is disposed on the patient support plate (Fig 3, head restraint 66 on plate 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser and Soto to have the support plate as taught by Kantrowitz in order to allow for the use of the patient stabilization system with a variety of supports (Kantrowitz col 2 ll 25-35).
With respect to claim 14, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the head stabilization system of claim 12.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on wherein the head stabilization system further comprises a patient support plate configured to be secured to the patient support device and to receive at least a portion of the patient thereon; wherein the head restraint mechanism is disposed on the patient support plate.
Kantrowitz teaches an analogous adjustable head stabilization system (Fig 1) wherein the head stabilization system further comprises a patient support plate configured to be secured to the patient support device and to receive at least a portion of a patient thereon (Fig 2, support plate 26 attached to support device 22); wherein the head restraint mechanism is disposed on the patient support plate (Fig 3, head restraint 66 on plate 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser in view of Soto to have the support plate as taught by Kantrowitz in order to allow for the use of the patient stabilization system with a variety of supports (Kantrowitz col 2 ll 25-35).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloesser (US 20070032795 A1) in view of Soto (US 20120124747 A1), and further in view of Han (US 2007/0055306).
With respect to claim 6, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 1.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on further comprising a shoulder restraint comprising a shoulder restraint portion configured to engage a shoulder of the patient.
Han teaches an analogous tilting head support (Fig 1) further comprising a shoulder restraint comprising a shoulder restraint portion configured to engage a shoulder of the patient (Fig 1, shoulder restraints 10/11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser in view of Soto with the addition of shoulder restraints as taught by Han in order to maintain the should in place and allow for effective movement of the head (Han [0005]).
With respect to claim 15, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 12.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on further comprising a shoulder restraint comprising a shoulder restraint portion configured to engage a shoulder of the patient.
Han teaches an analogous tilting head support (Fig 1) further comprising a shoulder restraint comprising a shoulder restraint portion configured to engage a shoulder of the patient (Fig 1, shoulder restraints 10/11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser in view of Soto with the addition of shoulder restraints as taught by Han in order to maintain the should in place and allow for effective movement of the head (Han [0005]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloesser (US 20070032795 A1) in view of Soto (US 20120124747 A1), and further in view of Han (US 2007/0055306), and further in view of Malcolm (US 2010/0242177).
With respect to claim 7, Schloesser in view of Soto and Han discloses The system of claim 6.
Schloesser in view of Soto and Han is silent on wherein the shoulder restraint is selectively movable at least one of laterally or longitudinally relative to the head restraint mechanism.
Malcolm teaches an analogous should restraint (Fig 5) wherein the shoulder restraint is selectively movable at least one of laterally or longitudinally relative to the head restraint mechanism (Fig 5, Fig 4, move alone track 35/36 relative to head support 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shoulder restraints of Schloesser in view of Soto and Han to move laterally as taught by Malcolm in order to more accurately be positioned to the user (Malcolm [0004]).
Claims 8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloesser (US 20070032795 A1) in view of Soto (US 20120124747 A1), and further in view of Sullivan (US 2020/0100972) (priority to Sep. 2018).
With respect to claim 8, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 1.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on further comprising a torso pad configured to facilitate vertical positioning of an upper torso of the patient relative to the head restraint mechanism.
Sullivan teaches an analogous adjustable head restraint (Fig 1, restraint 178) further having a torso pad configured to facilitate vertical positioning of an upper torso of the patient relative to the head restraint mechanism (Fig 1, pad 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser in view of Soto with the addition of the torso pad as taught by Sullivan in order to adjust for different sizes of patients (Sullivan [0031]).
With respect to claim 16, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 12.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on further comprising a torso pad configured to facilitate vertical positioning of an upper torso of the patient relative to the head restraint mechanism.
Sullivan teaches an analogous adjustable head restraint (Fig 1, restraint 178) further having a torso pad configured to facilitate vertical positioning of an upper torso of the patient relative to the head restraint mechanism (Fig 1, pad 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser in view of Soto with the addition of the torso pad as taught by Sullivan in order to adjust for different sizes of patients (Sullivan [0031]).
With respect to claim 17, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 12.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on further comprising a neck pad configured to facilitate vertical positioning a neck of the patient relative to the head restraint mechanism.
Sullivan teaches an analogous adjustable head restraint (Fig 1, restraint 178) further having a neck pad configured to facilitate vertical positioning a neck of the patient relative to the head restraint mechanism (Fig 1, Fig 2, neck pad 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Schloesser in view of Soto with the addition of the neck pad as taught by Sullivan in order to better align the user (Sullivan [0024]).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloesser (US 20070032795 A1) in view of Soto (US 20120124747 A1), and further in view of Chitwood (US 5,569,175).
With respect to claim 21, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses the system of claim 1.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively provide 30 degrees of lateral flexion of the neck of the patient, left and right, for a total of 60 degrees of flexion of the neck of the patient.
Chitwood teaches an analogous rotating neck support wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively provide 30 degrees of lateral flexion of the neck of the patient, left and right, for a total of 60 degrees of flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 6-Fig 8, col 5 ll 40-45, 30 degree left and right flexion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexion of the system of Schloesser in view of Soto to be 30 degrees on each side as taught by Chitwood in order to effectively open the spinal column (Chitwood col 1 ll 55-60).
With respect to claim 22, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 1.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively provide 120 degrees of lateral rotation of the head of the patient, left and right, for a total of 240 degrees of rotation of the head of the patient.
Schloesser does provide for lateral rotation as roll being 90 degrees left to right for a total of 180 degrees of rotation (see [0047])
Chitwood teaches an analogous rotating neck support wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively provide 80 degrees of lateral rotation of the head of the patient, left and right, for a total of 160 degrees of rotation of the head of the patient (Fig 3-Fig 5, col 5 ll 20-40, 45 degree left and right rotation, 45 degrees is 80 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided Schloesser in view of Soto to be configured to selectively provide 120 degrees of lateral rotation of the head of the patient, left and right, for a total of 240 degrees of rotation of the head of the patient using the teachings of Schloesser and Chitwood, wherein these specific degrees of 120 and 240 degrees may be found obvious as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to claim 23, Schloesser in view of Soto discloses The system of claim 1.
Schloesser in view of Soto is silent on wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively provide 50 degrees of neck extension and 50 degrees of neck flexion, for a total of 100 degrees of extension and flexion of the neck of the patient.
Chitwood teaches an analogous rotating neck support wherein the head restraint mechanism is configured to selectively provide 30 degrees of neck extension and 45 degrees of neck flexion, for a total of 75 degrees of extension and flexion of the neck of the patient (Fig 9-Fig 11, col 5 ll 50-60, 30 degree extension and 45 degree flexion, 75 total degrees is 60 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flexion of the system of Schloesser in view of Soto to have the flexion and extension as taught by Chitwood in order to effectively open the spinal column (Chitwood col 1 ll 55-60), wherein accordingly the specific degrees of 50 degrees for flexion and extension for a total of 100 degrees may be found obvious as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786