DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 102: Kong
The remarks take the position that Kong does not teach the at least one first and second shielding panels have a fixed horizontal length because Kong describes the fiber 41 as variable length. This has not been found persuasive. Paragraph [0049] of Kong teaches the variable length fibers being variable by changing from a corrugated form to an expanded form where the wrinkled part is spread when the length of the frame part is increased. That is, while the fibers 41 are variable in length (i.e. from wrinkled/corrugated form in figure 2 to the smooth form in figure 5), the length of the shield itself does not change. Instead, the shape of 41 changes not the length. That is, while in the corrugated or wrinkled state in figure 2, the shield 41 still has the same length as figure 5, only the shielding material is wrinkled thus shortened by the shorter frame. Claim 1 does not require the first and second shielding panels to be rigid, therefore a flexible sheet is sufficient to meet the claimed requirements.
However, solely to advance prosecution an additional reference is applied herein below that anticipates claim 1 even as amended.
The amendments to the remaining dependent claims are addressed in the rejection herein below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR20180053953) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for protecting an individual from exposure to radiation occurring from radiographic equipment in an operating room (fig. 4 shows a shield, the remainder of claim 1 is intended use), comprising:
positioning a vertical stand (positioning vertical stand 310/320 via 220 see paragraph [0045]-[0047]) supporting a horizontal arm (220) and at least one shielding panel (540, left side of figure 4) suspended downwardly from the horizontal arm (540 suspended from 220) and at least one second shielding panel (either 530 or 540 right side of figure 4) suspended downwardly from the horizontal arm (530 or 540 suspended downward from 220/210), wherein the at least one first and second shielding panels have a fixed horizontal length (shields 540 of figure 5 have a fixed horizontal length and slide in and out from main screen 530 coupled to support 220 [0062]);
extending the vertical stand to a desired height for positioning the at least one shielding panel above the operating table ([0045]-[0047]);
positioning the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel between the individual and the radiographic equipment (inherent to provide shielding from x-rays);
adjusting the position of the at least second shielding panel relative to the at least one shielding panel (as indicated by double sided arrows in figure 4); and
removing the stand, the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel from the operating table when the radiographic equipment is no longer in use (implicit).
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong (KR-1020210027584) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 07/16/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches a method for protecting an individual from exposure to radiation occurring from radiographic equipment in an operating room ([0005] and figure 11), comprising:
positioning a vertical stand (vertical frame part 20 is adjustable see paragraph [0030]) supporting a horizontal arm (variable arms 32 are supported by 20 via 31 see figure 3) and at least one shielding panel (43/42) suspended downwardly from the horizontal arm (43 is suspended downwardly from 322 of 32) and at least one second shielding panel (41) suspended downwardly from the horizontal arm (41 is suspended downwardly of 322 and 321 of 32 best seen in figure 2) (note: the instant specification teaches that fibers may be used as materials ([0064] of the published application), therefore the fibers 41 and 42 are interpreted to be within the BRI of the claimed panels), wherein the at least one first and second shielding panels have a fixed horizontal length (all materials have a fixed length, the variable fiber 42 is only changed in shape from wrinkled to smooth in figures and 5);
extending the vertical stand to a desired height for positioning the at least one shielding panel above the operating table (20 is vertically adjustable [0030] desired height seen in figure 11);
positioning the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel between the individual and the radiographic equipment (fig. 11 shows 42/41 of 40 between patient and radiographic equipment, moreover paragraph [050] teaches the medical practitioner may operate the patient by spreading the gap between the adjacent vertical fibers 42, suggesting that the shielding is between the medical practitioner and radiographic equipment see paragraph [0018] for radiography and paragraph [0048] for minimizing exposure to radiation to patients and medical personnel);
adjusting the position of the at least second shielding panel relative to the at least one shielding panel (Figure 2 shows the short configuration where 41 is contracted with respect to first radiation shielding (42/43) and figure 5 shows the lengthened configuration where 41 extends along the frame. Therefore, by extension of the frame from figure 2 to figure 5, the position of 41 is adjusted relative to 42/43 from a contracted to an extended state); and
removing the stand, the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel from the operating table when the radiographic equipment is no longer in use (paragraph [0056] teaches figure 11 positions the radiation shield for fluoroscopic imaging, thus after imaging, the stand 20 is removed such that the patient may get off the table and the stand remains removed until the next patient is ready to be imaged)
Regarding claim 2, Kong teaches wherein the at least one second shielding panel is coupled to the at least one first shielding panel and the vertical stand by a portion of the horizontal arm (41 (second shielding panel) and 43/42 (at least one shielding panel) are coupled to stand 20 via horizontal arm 32) and wherein the at least one second shielding panel is configured to extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand (via slide bar 322 and rail groove 321a the length is variable, thus telescopically away see paragraph [0038] and figures 2-5), wherein the method further comprises the step of
extending the at least second shielding panel horizontally away from the at least one shielding panel and increase the horizontal area encompassed by the at least one first and at least one second shielding panels and increase the shielding area (figure 2 shows second shielding panel 41 in compressed arrangement, figure 5shows 42/43 extended away from 41 via frame 30 increasing the shielding area. Change of 41 from compressed (corrugated/wrinkled state [0049]) to expanded state results in the shield panel 41 extending horizontally away from the panel 42/43).
Regarding claim 3, Kong teaches wherein the at least a second shielding panel is coupled to the at least one first shielding panel by a telescoping engagement (as seen in figures 2 and 5 showing compressed vs. extended arrangement of shield 42/43 to 41, note paragraph [0038] wherein telescoping is via rail groove and slide bar).
Regarding claim 4, Kong teaches retracting the at least a second shielding panel prior to removing the vertical stand (fig. 2 shows retracted state of shield 41, [0032] teaches adjusting the length of 30 (i.e. frame supporting shields) according to the patient’s body, thus if the patient is shorter than the length of the shield, the frame is shorted prior to imaging. After imaging the frame 20 of figure 11 is inherently removed from the patient such that the patient may get off the table).
Regarding claim 5, Kong teaches securing the vertical stand in the desired height by locking means (via pin member see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Kong teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel is opaque ([0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Kong teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel comprises a skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least one shielding panel (42 extends from 43 as a skirt).
Regarding claim 9, Kong teaches wherein the vertical stand comprises a plurality of rollers for positioning the stand away from the operating table (wheels 11 see figure 5).
Regarding claim 10, Kong teaches wherein the horizontal arm extends longer than the length of the at least one first shielding panel (arm 32 extends longer than 42/43).
Regarding claim 11, Kong teaches wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least a second shielding panel are not permitted to rotate relative to each other or to the vertical stand (40 cannot rotate relative to the stand 20 as seen in figures 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 12, Kong teaches further comprising the step of securing the stand in the desired height by inserting a locking pin through an aperture in the arm ([0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Kong teaches wherein the at least one second shielding panel is configured to telescopingly extend from the at least one first shielding panel and double the horizontal length of the shielding area (figs. 2 and 5, 41 extends from 42/43 and may double the length via the variable length frame 30).
Regarding claim 17, Kong teaches wherein the horizontal arm comprises at least one member configured to extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand (figs. 3-4 322 extends from 321).
Regarding claim 18, Kong teaches wherein the horizontal arm comprises a first member configured to extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand (figures 7-8 324 on the left) and a second member configured to further extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand (324 on the right see paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 19, Kong teaches wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are coupled to the horizontal arm to prohibit the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel from swaying relative to the horizontal arm (as seen in figures 2 or 5 40 is coupled to 32, provided nothing disturbs the fibers 41 and 42 40 will not sway, the claim does not require how swaying is prohibited, therefore gravity is interpreted to be the prohibiting means).
Regarding claim 20, Kong teaches wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are supported by the horizontal arm without a vertical support directly coupled to the at least one second shielding panel (vertical support 20 is coupled to 31 which supports 40, thus not directly coupled to the shield 41).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong in view of Webb (GB877485) (copy of publication submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 6, Kong teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel comprises lead glass based material ([0054]), however fails to disclose the material of the opaque fiber 41.
However, Webb teaches a radiopaque fabric comprised of lead glass based material (see lines 11-25 of page 1 for lead glass fabric for reducing the radiation dose due to scattering x-rays).
Web modifies Kong by suggesting a material of the fiber to be lead glass fabric.
Since both inventions are directed towards radiation attenuating fabrics, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lead glass fabric of Webb in the device of Kong because it would be suitable for the intended use (i.e. flexible and attenuating to backscatter).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong.
Regarding claim 13, Kong teaches wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are configured to be in a first position of use (fig. 2), and wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding configured to be in a second position of use (fig. 5), wherein the at least one second shielding panel is adjacent to the at least one shielding panel (42/43 is adjacent 41).
Kong fails to disclose wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are overlapping.
However, Kong teaches the importance of the vertical fibers 42 to overlap each other to effectively shield radiation ([0050]).
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that 41 overlaps 43/42 to ensure there is no gap between the two shielding components such that the shield 40 may be effective for minimizing radiation to the medical personnel.
Regarding claim 14, Kong teaches wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are suspended from the arm and do not rotate relative to each other or to the vertical stand (as seen in figures 2 and 5 40 does not rotate relative to the stand 20 unless disturbed).
Regarding claim 15, Kong teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel is stationary and does not move relative to the horizontal arm(42/43 is stationary relative to 41).
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881