DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Rejection for non-provisional application 18/258,340 filed June 20th 2023, which claims priority from Foreign Application AU2020904860 filed December 12th 2020. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” in Fig. 1 has been used to designate both upwardly extending side walls, wherein one of the extending side walls should be denoted as “16”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the numerals “Frame 12, Sling Member 20 and Abutment Portion 30” fail to clearly label the described structure in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to because numeral 16 in Fig. 12 is missing an arrow pointing to the relevant structure. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3, “adjustable connected” should read “adjustably connected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites the term “generally” in lines 2-3, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally rigid base and generally rigid side walls” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne (US 4504050 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Osborne discloses a patient head support apparatus (Fig. 2; head support 1), comprising: a frame (Fig. 1; wherein the structure of base 4 connected to flanges 6 and 7 make a frame) including a base (Fig. 1; base 4) and at least two spaced apart upwardly extending side walls (Fig 2; flanges 6 and 7), the base being adapted to be supported on a patient receiving surface (Fig. 2; platform 3); and an adjustable sling member configured to be reversibly attached to a head of the patient (Fig. 2; faceplate 8), wherein the sling member is reversibly couplable to the upwardly extending side walls of the frame to thereby support the head of the patient above the patient receiving surface (Fig. 1 and 2; wherein faceplate 8 is capable of being reversibly couplable to flanges 6 and 7 through slots 20 by loosening of the wing screw 22 and wing nut 24).
Regarding Claim 2, Osborne discloses the patient head support apparatus in accordance with claim 1, being configured to support the head of said patient positioned in a prone orientation (Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Regarding Claim 3, Osborne discloses the head support apparatus (Fig. 1 and 2; head support 1 comprised of faceplate 8 and pad 9) being configured to support the head of said patient positioned in a supine orientation, a left lateral recumbent orientation, or a right lateral recumbent orientation (Fig. 1-3; wherein the examiner notes faceplate 8 is capable of supporting a patient in a supine, left or right lateral recumbent orientation with the back of the patient’s head or ear resting on pad 9 and straps 26 securing the front or sides of the patient’s head/face respectfully).
With respect to the orientation of the patient’s head in the head support, the applicant is reminded a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 4504050 A) in view of Jansen (US 4097038 A).
Regarding Claim 4, Osborne fails to explicitly disclose the frame includes a generally rigid base, having two spaced apart generally rigid side walls extending upwardly from edges thereof.
However, Jansen teaches a frame including a generally rigid base, having two spaced apart generally rigid side walls extending upwardly from edges thereof (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 57-62; body 13, sidewalls 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the base 4 and flanges 6 and 7 of Osborne with the rigid structures of Jansen. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the incorporation of a rigid base and side walls would improve the overall structural stability and protective capabilities of the head support.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 4504050 A) in view of Jansen (US 4097038 A) as applied to Claim 4 and in further view of Schlanger (US 20110000022 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Osborne fails to explicitly disclose the patient head support apparatus, wherein the frame comprises two interconnectable portions being connectable to form the base and side walls.
However, Schlanger teaches a support device wherein the frame comprises two interconnectable portions being connectable to form the base and side walls (Fig. 3, ¶ 40, ¶ 57; beams 108, pivot arms 218). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the base 4 and flanges 6 and 7 of Osborne with the beams 108 of Schlanger such that the base comprises two interconnectable portions being connectable to form the base and side walls. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so as the incorporation of interconnectable portions can make it easier to transport the head support in its disconnected form.
Regarding Claim 6, Osborne in view of Jansen and in further view of Schlanger discloses the device as claimed in claim 5. Osborne further discloses the side walls (Fig 2; flanges 6 and 7) include respective voids (Fig 1; slots 20) extending therethrough wherein the voids are graspable by a practitioner for repositioning said patient head support apparatus when the patient's head is supported thereon.
Claims 7-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 4504050 A) in view of Schlanger (US 20110000022 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Osborne discloses the patient head support apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the adjustable sling member (Fig. 2; faceplate 8) includes a head/face abutment portion (Fig. 2; opening 13) and a head securing member (See Annotated Fig. 1; wherein the examiner is interpreting upper strap 26 around the top of the user’s head as a head securing member and lower strap 26 around the bottom of the user’s head as an adjustment strap).
While, Osborne does not explicitly disclose a plurality of adjustment straps (See Annotated Fig. 1; strap 26), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a second adjustment strap because Osborne teaches that strap 26 prevents movement by securing a patient’s head (Col. 3, lines 15-19). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because adding in more adjustment straps further secures the patient's head and a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that more straps equal more stability. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378
PNG
media_image1.png
416
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a first interpretation, Osborne fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adjustable sling member includes handles. However, Schlanger teaches a support device with handles (Fig. 1-3, shown unfurled in Fig. 3, ¶ 51; cover sleeve 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add cover sleeve 120 of Schlanger to the adjustment strap of Osborne. Wherein, cover sleeve 120 of Schlanger modifies the adjustment strap of Osborne by ways of slipping onto, or off of, prior to assembly, or secured by use of Velcro or other removable fasteners (¶ 51), wherein the examiner notes the combination of the cover sleeve with the adjustment strap is considered graspable and capable of use as handles. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the addition of handles to the adjustable sling member in the head support allows for easier transport, alignment, or repositioning of the apparatus whilst still supporting the head of the patient. Handles are a common design feature in support devices, and their addition is consistent with standard medical/therapeutic design practices and as such is recognized as providing practical benefits without altering the underlying function of the head support.
In a second interpretation, Osborne discloses wherein the adjustable sling member includes handles (See Annotated Fig. 1; wherein the examiner notes the free end tabs of strap 26 are graspable and as such capable of supporting and manipulating the head of the patient whilst they are being moved).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Osborne fails to explicitly disclose wherein the adjustable sling member includes couplings (Col. 3, lines 15-19; wherein the Velcro straps 26 may be secured to flanges 6 and 7).
However, Schlanger teaches a support device with couplings (Fig. 1-3; cam buckles 122). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add cam buckles 122 of Schlanger to the side walls of Osborne. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because, as Schlanger notes, the addition of cam buckles would allow for an adjustable coupling device wherein the relative length of the handles coupled to the cam buckle may be increased or decreased (¶ 48).
Regarding Claim 8, Osborne in view of Schlanger discloses the device as claimed in claim 7. Osborne further discloses the head/face abutment portion comprises a resilient deformable pad being configured to conform to a unique profile of the patient's head or face (Fig. 1 and 2; wherein pad 9 conforms to a patient's head or face).
Regarding Claim 9, Osborne in view of Schlanger discloses the device as claimed in claim 8. Osborne further discloses the head/face abutment portion includes a void or voids extending therethrough (Fig. 2; opening 13) that are positionable relative to the eyes and mouth/nose regions of the patient's face, whereby the eyes and mouth/nose regions of the patient are visible or accessible throughout a medical procedure or operation, when the patient is positioned in a prone orientation (Fig. 1, Col. 2, lines 51-53).
Regarding Claim 11, Osborne discloses the patient head support apparatus in accordance with claim 7, wherein the adjustment straps are configured to be fixedly connected to the head/face abutment portion and wherein the adjustment straps are used to modify the position of the patient's head once the adjustable sling member has been attached to the frame, to thereby ensure the patient's head is adequately supported whilst allowing access, either physical or visual, to the eye region and/or mouth/nose regions of the patient (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 15-19; Velcro strap 26).
Osborne fails to disclose the adjustment straps adjustably connected through respective apertures in a respective handle.
For the purposes of claim 11 with respect to the first interpretation of claim 7, Schlanger teaches an aperture (See annotated Fig. 1, ¶ 51; wherein cover sleeve 120 comprises an opening) on respective handle (Fig. 1-3, shown unfurled in Fig. 3, ¶ 51; cover sleeve 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add cover sleeve 120 of Schlanger to the adjustment strap of Osborne. Wherein, cover sleeve 120 of Schlanger modifies the adjustment strap of Osborne by ways of slipping onto, or off of, prior to assembly, or secured by use of Velcro or other removable fasteners (¶ 51), wherein the examiner notes the combination of the cover sleeve with the adjustment strap is considered graspable and capable of use as handles.
PNG
media_image3.png
460
609
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12 with respect to the second interpretation of claim 7, Osborne discloses the patient head support apparatus with handles (See Annotated Fig. 1; wherein the examiner notes the free end tabs of strap 26 are graspable and as such capable of supporting and manipulating the head of the patient whilst they are being moved).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Osborne fails to explicitly disclose the patient head support apparatus in accordance with claim 7, wherein each handle incorporates a respective coupling which is configured to engage an upper edge of a respective side wall of the frame, whereby each handle is reversibly couplable to a respective side wall of the frame.
However, Schlanger teaches a support device wherein each handle incorporates a respective coupling (Fig. 1-3; cam buckles 122) which is configured to engage an upper edge of a respective side wall of the frame (Fig. 1-3; wherein cam buckles 122 are rigidly mounted to the top of upstanding support members 104), whereby each handle is reversibly couplable to a respective side wall of the frame (wherein the examiner notes, free end tabs of strap 26 of Osborne is capable of being reversibly couplable by the incorporation of cam buckles 122 of Schlanger). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add cam buckles 122 of Schlanger to the side walls of Osborne such that each handle of Osborne may be reversibly couplable to an upper edge of a respective side wall of the frame. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because, as Schlanger notes, the addition of cam buckles to an upper edge of a respective side wall would allow for an adjustable coupling device wherein the relative length of the handles coupled to the cam buckle may be increased or decreased (¶ 48), allowing for increased stability of the head support whilst it is being moved and can further be utilized to assist in securing the head of a patient in place.
Regarding Claim 13, the Osborne and Schlanger combination discloses the limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above, wherein Osborne discloses a first adjustment strap is adapted to extend across or adjacent the forehead region of the patient between the spaced apart side walls of the frame, and a second adjustment strap is adapted to extend across or adjacent the chin region of the patient between the spaced apart side walls (See Annotated Fig. 1 below; wherein the examiner notes the first and second adjustment straps 26 are capable of extending across the forehead adjacent and chin adjacent regions of the patient’s head/face in a supine orientation).
PNG
media_image4.png
416
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to the orientation of the patient’s head in the head support, the applicant is reminded a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Osborne in view of Schlanger discloses the device as claimed in claim 9. Osborne further discloses a void of the patient head support apparatus is configured to register with a surgical eye shield reversibly affixable to the patient's face, to thereby assists in the correct fitting of the adjustable sling member and maintaining the adjustable sling member's position relative to the face when the patient is being moved or during the medical procedure or operation (Fig. 2; wherein opening 13 with a cut-out for face 10 is capable of receiving a patient with a surgical eye shield). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the opening 13 such that the void may be slightly larger to encompass a surgical eye shield reversibly affixable to a patient's face. It has been deemed that limitations relating to the size/shape of a device were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over a prior art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 4504050 A) in view of Jansen (US 4097038 A), Schlanger (US 20110000022 A1), and Farris (US5220699A).
Regarding Claim 16, Osborne discloses a method of supporting the head of a patient in a prone orientation, including the steps of: providing a head support apparatus (Fig. 2; head support 1) in accordance with claim 1; attaching an adjustable sling member of the head support apparatus to the head of the patient (Fig. 2; faceplate 8), wherein an abutment portion of the adjustable sling member abuts the face of the patient and a void or voids extending through the abutment portion permits visual observation of, or access to, the patient's eye +region and/or mouth/nose regions (Fig. 1-3; wherein faceplate 8 is capable of being reversibly couplable to flanges 6 and 7 through slots 20 by loosening of the wing screw 22 and wing nut 24 such that it may be removed and configured to the head of the patient in a supine orientation); positioning a frame of head support apparatus below and adjacent the face of the patient (Fig. 1; wherein the structure of base 4 connected to flanges 6 and 7 make a frame); attaching the adjustable sling member to the side walls of the frame wherein the patient's head is spaced apart from a surface on which the patient is positioned (Fig. 1-2; wherein faceplate 8 may be attached to flanges 6 and 7 through slots 20 by wing screw 22 and wing nut 24); and adjusting straps of the adjustable sling member to ensure appropriate head height and angle relative to the patient's body, while providing adequate support of the patient's head (Fig. 1-3, Col. 3, lines 3-19; wherein adjustable straps 26, wing screw 22, and wing nut 24 may adjust the adjustable sling member to the appropriate height and angle while providing security and stability to the patient’s head).
Osborne fails to explicitly disclose positioning the patient in a supine orientation; rolling or otherwise moving the patient into the prone orientation, wherein handles of the adjustable sling member are utilized to support the head of the patient, and permitting further adjustment of the patient's body and limbs while supporting the patient's head.
However, Jansen teaches a method for positioning the patient in a supine orientation (Fig. 1, Col. 1, lines 17-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Osborne such that the patient is in a supine orientation. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because positioning a patient in a supine orientation prior to the attachment of the head support is obvious because it provides a stable, accessible, and anatomically neutral position that is a routine and well understood clinical practice.
Farris teaches a method of rolling or otherwise moving the patient into the prone orientation (Col. 3, lines 1-7 and 18; wherein the examiner notes the facial support mask 10 is secured to a patient’s face and capable of being secured to a patient in a supine position, wherein the patient is then rolled into a prone position). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Osborne such that the patient may be rolled into the prone position. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so as this allows access to the back of the patient’s head.
Schlanger teaches rolling or otherwise moving the patient into the prone orientation, wherein handles of the adjustable sling member are utilized to support the head of the patient, and permitting further adjustment of the patient's body and limbs while supporting the patient's head (Fig. 1-3, shown unfurled in Fig. 3, ¶ 51; cover sleeve 120) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add cover sleeve 120 of Schlanger to the adjustment strap of Osborne. Wherein, cover sleeve 120 of Schlanger modifies the adjustment strap of Osborne by ways of slipping onto, or off of, prior to assembly, or secured by use of Velcro or other removable fasteners (¶ 51), wherein the examiner notes the combination of the cover sleeve with the adjustment strap is considered graspable and capable of use as handles. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the addition of handles to the adjustable sling member in the head support allows for easier transport, alignment, or repositioning of the apparatus whilst still supporting the head of the patient. Handles are a common design feature in support devices, and their addition is consistent with standard medical/therapeutic design practices and as such is recognized as providing practical benefits without altering the underlying function of the head support. The examiner further notes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to reposition a patient from a supine orientation to a prone orientation when posterior access to the body is required, and as such, repositioning is a routine and well-understood clinical practice, yielding predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 4504050 A) in view of Schlanger (US 20110000022 A1), as applied to claims 7-9 and 11-14 above, and in further view of Skripps (WO2006110671A2).
Regarding Claim 10, Osborne fails to explicitly disclose wherein the resilient deformable pad (Fig. 2; pad 9) is reversibly couplable to the adjustable sling member.
However, Skripps teaches a resilient deformable pad reversibly couplable to the adjustable sling member (Fig. 2, pg. 11, lines 24-26; wherein foam pad 120 may be reversibly couplable by securing tabs 180 to posts 182 on shell 140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify pad 9 of Osborne with foam pad 120 comprised of tabs 180 of Skripps and to modify the adjustable sling member of Osborne with posts 182 of Skripps such that the resilient deformable pad may be reversibly couplable to the adjustable sling member. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because incorporation of a reversibly couplable resilient deformable pad allows for easy set-up of the adjustable sling member between patient use.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (US 4504050 A) in view of Wang (CN111067735A).
Regarding Claim 15, Osborne fails to disclose the patient head support apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one sensor is embedded into, or is attached to a face engaging surface of the adjustable sling member for monitoring dynamic pressure changes throughout a medical procedure or operation.
However, Wang teaches at least one sensor is embedded into, or is attached to a face engaging surface of the adjustable sling member for monitoring dynamic pressure changes throughout a medical procedure or operation (Fig. 1, pg. 4, ¶ 1-2; pressure sensor A023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to add the pressure sensor A023 of Wang to the adjustable sling member of Osborne. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so as face rests having sensors to monitor the pressure exerted against a patient’s head/face during a medical procedure can protect against facial injuries that commonly occur during use of prone position head rests and is considered common knowledge in the art (pg. 4, ¶ 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shefaali Sivabada whose telephone number is 571-272-0451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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 E. 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.
/SHEFAALI SIVABADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786