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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 § 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.
Claims 19-20 are 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 19 is vague and indefinite for reciting “wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel further comprise a skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least one shielding panel” because it is not clear how both the at least one shielding panel and at least one second shielding panel comprise a skirt extending from a lower surface of the one shielding panel. That is, if both comprise a skirt, then how can the skirt of the second shielding panel extend from the at least one shielding panel (in other words, if both have skirts then a skirt should extend from each shielding panel). Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim requires both panels to have a skirt or just one of the panels. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted that the skirt is applied to either shielding panel.
Claim 20 recites similar subject matter and is vague and indefinite for the same reasons as claim 19.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (KR-1020210027584) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 07/16/2025) and further in view of Zhang (CN201719263) (copy of publication and machine translation submitted herewith).
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),
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).
Kong teaches one of the radiation shields comprises a fiber and one shield comprises a see through panel, thus fails to disclose wherein the at least one first and second shielding panels each comprise: a rigid sheet of shielding material: a constant, non-variable height and length; and a constant surface area defined by the constant, non-variable height and length.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the at least one first and second shielding panels each comprise: a rigid sheet of shielding material: a constant, non-variable height and length; and a constant surface area defined by the constant, non-variable height and length (each of protective screen 4 is bent in a U shape and may be made of metal or thick lead glass, thus rigid and non-variable height and length, see paragraphs [0007] and [0012]).
Zhang modifies Kong by suggesting using a rigid material for the collapsible shield of Kong (note the protective screen of Zhang may be change from an overlapped condition during idle time and spread during a servicing time (see abstract) and mechanism for unfolding discussed in paragraphs [0007] and [0033]).
Since both inventions are directed towards collapsable shields, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the fiber and variable arms of Kong for the rigid shield with rails of Zhang because lead clothing is heavy therefore the assembled rigid shield reduces labor and increases efficiency compared to placement of the heavy fiber of Kong (see paragraph [0004] of Zhang) additionally efficiency is improved by reducing preparation work such as sanitizing and transferring the blanket of Kong (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004] of Zhang) and finally as evidenced by Zhang lead rubber cloths do not have an acceptable protective effect ([0006]), therefore the substitution would result in a collapsible shield with improved radiation protection.
Regarding claim 2, Kong in view of Zhang 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 a second shielding panel horizontally away from the at least one first shielding panel to combine the constant surface area defined by the constant, non-variable extending the at least a second shielding panel horizontally away from the at least one first shielding panel to combine the constant surface area defined by the constant, non-variable height and length of the at least one first shielding panel with the constant surface area defined by the constant, non-variable height and length of the at least one second shielding panel, thereby increasing the total surface area (Zhang, in transition from folded or collapsed state to expanded state (see figure 2 and abstract and paragraph [0007] and [0033])).
Regarding claim 3, Kong alone or as modified by Zhang 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 or as modified by Zhang which similarly teaches a rail and folding or unfolding metal protective screens see paragraph [0007]).
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 6, Kong in view of Zhang teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel is comprised of lead-based glass material (Zhang teaches lead glass for protective shields, see paragraph [0012] therefore improving the viewing field of the patient in Kong).
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 13, Kong in view of Zhang teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are configured to be in a first position of use, wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are overlapping (Zhang, overlapping arrangement when idle (see abstract)), and wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are further configured to be in a second position of use, wherein the at least one second shielding panel is adjacent to the at least one first shielding panel (Zhang service position the shields are pulled and spread outside from the overlapped condition, see abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Kong fails to disclose wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are removable from the horizontal arm and substituted by a different shielding material
However, the device is assembled, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one of the shields when they become damaged so as reduce cost by repair instead of replacing the entire system.
Regarding claim 15, Kong in view of Zhang teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel is stationary and does not move relative to the horizontal arm(Kong, 42/43 is stationary relative to 41, alternatively as modified by Zhang the furthest right shield 4 may be fixed while the other shields are pulled therefrom see figure 2 and abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Kong in view of Zhang 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 (Zhang abstract teaches screens pulled and spread outside from the overlapped condition and figure 2 thus telescopingly extended).
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 further comprise a skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least one shielding panel (skirt 42 extending from 43, note the claim does not require each to comprise a skirt therefore provided that one has a skirt the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 20, Kong teaches wherein the skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least on first shielding panel and the at (as seen in figure 5 42 forms slits).
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemer (US pgPub 2020/0100736) in view of Lemer (US pgPub 2015/0206609).
Regarding claim 1, Lemer teaches a method for protecting an individual from exposure to radiation occurring from radiographic equipment in an operating room (inherent to the different views of the apparatus seen in figures 1-12), comprising:
positioning a vertical stand (corner edge 4 supporting arm 23 on rotating axis 7 (see figure 5), figures 1-2 show components extending to the bottom of 4 supported on wheels 6) supporting a horizontal arm (23, see figure 5 (contracted state of 23) and figure 11 (expanded state of 23)) and at least one shielding panel (figs. 10-11, 227 comprising an upper part 2271 and lower part 2272, see paragraph [0114]) suspended downwardly from the horizontal arm (arm 23, note: [0130] teaches upper part of 22 is mounted by arm 23, since 227 is the panel of upper part 22 ([0113]), 227 is suspended from 23, see figure 11) and at least one second shielding panel (lower panel 228 comprising upper and lower parts 2281/2282 (see paragraphs [0115]-[0116] and figure 10)) suspended downwardly from the horizontal arm (228 is suspended downwardly of 23 as seen in figure 11), wherein the at least one first and second shielding panels each compromise a rigid sheet of shielding material; a constant, non-variable height and length; and a constant surface area defined by the constant, non-variable height and length (paragraph [0114] teaches rigid materials of the upper panel and paragraph [0116] teach rigid materials of the upper part of 228 (i.e. 2281), thus of fixed size);
positioning the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel between the individual and the radiographic equipment (paragraph [0124] and figure 2 shows the lower edge 224 has a shape in order to follow the general outline of a patient lying on an exam table. Since the device is a radiation protective shield, it is inherently positioned between the radiographic equipment and the personnel behind the shield);
adjusting the position of the at least second shielding panel relative to the at least one shielding panel ([0118] teaches moving components of 228 with respect to components of panel 227 (i.e. 2281 sandwiches panel 2271) to move vertically with respect to panel 2272); 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).
Lemer fails to disclose extending the vertical stand to a desired height for positioning the at least one shielding panel above the operating table.
However, Lemer teaches extending the vertical stand to a desired height for positioning the at least one shielding panel above the operating table. (fig. 8 shows the stand having two telescoping parts 2a and 2b to allow height adjustment of the screen, see paragraph [0146], paragraph [0109] teaches flexible curtain 27 allows for passage of operator’s arms who will be able to accede to the patient, since the operator’s arms can reach the patient, the shield is raised above the patient table).
Lemer modifies Lemer by suggesting an additional vertical telescoping of the stand.
Since both inventions are directed towards shielding devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the extending step of Lemer in the method of Lemer because it would facilitate vertical positioning of the entire device so as to adjust the height suitable for the operator. That is, for taller operators a higher height would be necessary to ensure radiation protection from the shield.
Regarding claim 6, Lemer teaches herein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel is comprised of lead-based glass material ([0114] and [0116]).
Regarding claim 7, Lemer teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel is opaque ([0114] and [0116] opaque to x-rays).
Regarding claim 8, Lemer teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel comprises a skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least one shielding panel (switching the interpretation of the second panel to be 227 and the first panel to be 228, 228 comprises a lower part 2282, [0115] that comprises flexible strips, thus a skirt [0123]).
Regarding claim 9, Lemer teaches wherein the vertical stand comprises a plurality of rollers for positioning the stand away from the operating table (wheels 6 see figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Lemer teaches wherein the horizontal arm extends longer than the length of the at least one first shielding panel (as seen in figure 11 arm 23 extends longer than the length of 23 as evident by the gap between 3 and 22).
Regarding claim 13, Lemer teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are configured to be in a first position of use (either lower shield retracted into upper panel or lower panel extended from upper panel as discussed in citations in claim 1 above), wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are overlapping (as seen in figure 10 upper panel sandwiched by lower panel, see citations above in claim 1), and wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are further configured to be in a second position of use, wherein the at least one second shielding panel is adjacent to the at least one first shielding panel (extended lower panel to adjust height, see paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 14, Lemer fails to disclose wherein the at least one first shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel are removeable from the horizontal arm and substituted by a different shielding panel.
However, since the device is inherently assembled, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it may be disassembled and parts replaced due to damage to a panel (similar ground), therefore reducing cost by repair instead of replacing the entire device).
Regarding claim 15, Lemer teaches wherein the at least one first shielding panel is stationary and does not move relative to the horizontal arm (22 is fixed and mounted to the arm, it is the arm that slides, see [0130] and [0136]).
Regarding claim 17, Lemer teaches wherein the horizontal arm comprises at least one member configured to extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand ([0130] and [0136] via rollers arm 23 extends away from stand).
Regarding claim 18, Lemer teaches wherein the horizontal arm comprises a first member configured to extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand (surface of 23 that slides [0136]) and a second member configured to further extend telescopingly away from the vertical stand (surfaces of 22 that extend further than 23).
Regarding claim 19, Lemer teaches wherein the at least one shielding panel and the at least one second shielding panel further comprise a skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least one shielding panel (skirt 2282 extending from 228).
Regarding claim 20, Lemer teaches wherein the skirt extending from a lower surface of the at least on first shielding panel and the at the at least one second shielding panel is comprised of a flexible material and comprises a plurality of slits ([0123]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights