DETAILED ACTION
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
The Amendments filed March 10th, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 14-20 are found to be in condition for allowance, however, claims 1-13 respectfully remain rejected under 102 as set forth in the pertinent sections hereafter. However; in the interest of compact prosecution, claims 1 and 9 are rejected in the alternate under 103 with a different definition of ‘distinct’ being “separate” as opposed to just “distinguishable” or otherwise “distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete or not the same”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "the rod is movable by operation of the control element to release the cradle latch" in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Although the term ‘means’ is not used, the nonce term ‘element’ is invoked with regard to a ‘control’, and such control is conditional by the function ‘to release the cradle latch’, while respectfully providing no further structural language as to what a “control element” is. While the term “control element” could be feasibly anything that effects/affects a control on the system, a controller (electronics), a biasing spring (“controlling” the extent of motion), a/the space between the shaped stop and the rod (controlling the available space of movement), a depressible button, or a switch, or any number of controls or analog meanings thereof. The limitation “to release the control latch” is recognized functional language; and the limitation does not provide sufficient structure of the control element for performing the function of ‘to release/releasing the cradle latch’. Therefore, ‘control element’ is interpreted to read as “a button” or a “thumb operated switch” and equivalents thereof, as recited in page 6, third paragraph of applicant’s disclosure (e.g. “The control element 5 has preferably ergonomic shape for easy handling by a thumb”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Derenne et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20060117484); hereafter "Derenne".
Regarding claim 1, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) a patient support apparatus comprising a self-locking mechanism (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-9 and 10-16) comprising a cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, correspondent latching systems eminently illustrated therein), a support deck (correspondent 153; FIG. 1), and a patient support deck frame (correspondent 156-160 or 114-116; FIGS. 1-4), wherein the patient support deck frame comprises side rails (156 or 115; FIGS. 1-3), comprising at least one guiding post (120; FIGS. 1-3) having a shaped stop (122 and 124; FIG. 3), and at least one removable part (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, with multiple removable parts but particularly those concerning 100), wherein the removable part comprises a removable part body (the whole of removable body 100; FIG. 1) and a removable part frame (correspondent framework and inner constituents of 156-160; FIGS. 1-4), the removable part frame comprising three distinct parts including a bottom part of the frame (lower surface of 156; FIG. 1-4), an upper part of the frame upper surface of 156; FIG. 1-4), and a side part of the frame (side facing surfaces of 156; FIG. 1-4), wherein the self-locking mechanism couples the removable part frame in relation to the at least one guiding post (as conveyed in FIG. 3) and is located within the bottom part of the frame (as illustrated in FIG. 3), wherein the shaped stop is opposite an end of the cradle latch (as illustrated opposite the latching mechanism of FIGS. 3-8), wherein the removable part frame comprises a control element (correspondent at least 354; FIG. 16; 212: FIG. 8;) and a rod (at least 224; FIG. 8), and wherein the cradle latch (At least 214; FIG. 8) is located in a space separating the shaped stop and the rod (where as illustrated in FIG. 8 the cradle latch 214 eminently positions between 122 and 124 as illustrated in FIG. 8) such that the shaped stop and the rod restrict movement of the cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, facilitating both restriction of movement in how far 214 can progress with the rod 224 and able to be completely secured against 122 in FIG. 8). Where it is respectfully considered the term ‘distinct’ can mean “distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete or not the same” (Merriam Webster: “distinct”, definition 1), where such ‘not the same’ of the definition respectfully does not appear confined to an entirely separated and nonhomogenous collection of aggregate parts compared to an integral body but with clearly distinct and functionally different parts (i.e. a top surface/top part of the part would prevent dropping to the floor and possesses fastener surfaces to affix the deck support (153), a side surface/side part of the part would prevent shifting horizontally in at least one direction on any support and possesses unique aperture to hold the rods necessary for restricting the movement of the cradle latch (FIG. 5-8), and a bottom surface/bottom part would prevent the part from being kicked or knocked off of any supporting part, and possesses a unique groove (168) to aid sliding accommodation and securement of the removable part).
Regarding claim 2, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the rod is coupled with the control element located in the side part of the frame of the removable part of the patient support apparatus (as illustrated in FIGS. 1, 8 and 16 of Derenne).
Regarding claim 3, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control element and the rod are located in the side part of the frame of the removable part of the patient support apparatus vertically in relation to the cradle latch (as illustrated in FIG. 8, the cradle latch 214 is lower than the control element 212 which is vertically lower than the rod 224).
Regarding claim 4, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cradle latch is horizontally in the bottom part of the frame of the removable part of the patient support apparatus (As illustrated in FIGS. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cradle latch protrudes out of the bottom part of the frame (protruding both out of the bottom and orthogonally to the right out of the bottom part of the frame as illustrated in FIG. 8) of the removable part of the patient support apparatus to be in contact with the shaped stop (as illustrated in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the shaped stop is a part of the guiding post of the patient support apparatus outside the removable part frame (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-2 and 8).
Regarding claim 7, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cradle latch is attached in its middle point to an anchoring point which is located at a middle of a bottom side of the cradle latch (As illustrated in FIG. 8, wherein the middle of the cradle latch (vertical surface that is terminal a bottom side of the cradle latch) is an anchoring point that facilitates the latching).
Regarding claim 8, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24), the patient support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the cradle latch is of a rectangular shape wherein a bottom side of the cradle latch is bowed or curved to create a cradle shape (Wherein cradle latch 214 clearly possess a bottom side that is bowed or curved that creates a cradle like shape).
Regarding claim 9, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) a patient support apparatus a patient support deck frame (correspondent 156-160 or 114-116; FIGS. 1-4), at least one guiding post (120; FIGS. 1-3) supported in relation to the at least one guiding post (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3), a stop (122 and 124; FIG. 3) supported in relation to the at least one guiding post (As illustrated in FIG. 3), at least one removable part (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, with multiple removable parts but particularly those concerning 100), comprising a removable part body (the whole of removable body 100; FIG. 1) and a removable part frame (correspondent framework and inner constituents of 156-160; FIGS. 1-4), the removable part frame comprising at least a bottom part (lower surface of 156; FIG. 1-4), and a side part (side facing surfaces of 156; FIG. 1-4) distinct from the bottom part (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-8), a self-locking mechanism comprising a cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, correspondent latching systems eminently illustrated therein) supported for swinging or rocking movement in the bottom part to lock and unlock the removable part (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 3 with a pivotable drawer like stop/latch/rail/groove system), a control element located within the side part (correspondent at least 354; FIG. 16; 212: FIG. 8;), and a rod (at least 224; FIG. 8) connected to the control element (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3 and 16), the control element being operable to affect movement of the cradle latch (as conveyed through FIGS. 1-5 and particularly 3-5), the cradle latch (At least 214; FIG. 8) being located in a space separating the shaped stop and the rod (where as illustrated in FIG. 8 the cradle latch 214 eminently positions between 122 and 124 as illustrated in FIG. 8) such that the shaped stop and the rod restrict movement of the cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, facilitating both restriction of movement in how far 214 can progress with the rod 224 and able to be completely secured against 122 in FIG. 8). Where it is respectfully considered the term ‘distinct’ can mean “distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete or not the same” (Merriam Webster: “distinct”, definition 1), where such ‘not the same’ of the definition respectfully does not appear confined to an entirely separated and nonhomogenous collection of aggregate parts compared to an integral body but with clearly distinct and functionally different parts (i.e. a top surface/top part of the part would prevent dropping to the floor and possesses fastener surfaces to affix the deck support (153), a side surface/side part of the part would prevent shifting horizontally in at least one direction on any support and possesses unique aperture to hold the rods necessary for restricting the movement of the cradle latch (FIG. 5-8), and a bottom surface/bottom part would prevent the part from being kicked or knocked off of any supporting part, and possesses a unique groove (168) to aid sliding accommodation and securement of the removable part).
Regarding claim 10, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) the patient support apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the cradle latch is attached to the bottom part at an anchoring point to affect the swinging or rocking movement (as conveyed in FIGS. 3-8 in particular with the stop and cradle latch and bottom part able to be removed by swinging or rocking analogous to a drawer for removal/attachment).
Regarding claim 11, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) the patient support apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the cradle latch is attached to the bottom part at the anchoring point with a pin (202; FIG. 5; “pivot pin”; [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) the patient support apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the cradle latch comprises a spring (328; FIG. 10; “a spring 328”, [0049]; and 195; FIG. 3, [0038]) to bias the cradle latch (as illustrated in FIG. 10 and FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) the patient support apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the control element comprises a spring (328; FIG. 10; “a spring 328”, [0049]; and 195; FIG. 3, [0038]) to bias the rod (as illustrated in FIG. 10 and FIG. 3).
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.
In the alternate, Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derenne in view of itself. Where in the alternate is considered wherein the term “distinct” is treated as ‘entirely separated’, not merely just distinguishable.
Regarding claim 1, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) a patient support apparatus comprising a self-locking mechanism (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-9 and 10-16) comprising a cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, correspondent latching systems eminently illustrated therein), a support deck (correspondent 153; FIG. 1), and a patient support deck frame (correspondent 156-160 or 114-116; FIGS. 1-4), wherein the patient support deck frame comprises side rails (156 or 115; FIGS. 1-3), comprising at least one guiding post (120; FIGS. 1-3) having a shaped stop (122 and 124; FIG. 3), and at least one removable part (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, with multiple removable parts but particularly those concerning 100), wherein the removable part comprises a removable part body (the whole of removable body 100; FIG. 1) and a removable part frame (correspondent framework and inner constituents of 156-160; FIGS. 1-4), the removable part frame comprising three distinct parts including a bottom part of the frame (lower surface of 156; FIG. 1-4), an upper part of the frame upper surface of 156; FIG. 1-4), and a side part of the frame (side facing surfaces of 156; FIG. 1-4), wherein the self-locking mechanism couples the removable part frame in relation to the at least one guiding post (as conveyed in FIG. 3) and is located within the bottom part of the frame (as illustrated in FIG. 3), wherein the shaped stop is opposite an end of the cradle latch (as illustrated opposite the latching mechanism of FIGS. 3-8), wherein the removable part frame comprises a control element (correspondent at least 354; FIG. 16; 212: FIG. 8;) and a rod (at least 224; FIG. 8), and wherein the cradle latch (At least 214; FIG. 8) is located in a space separating the shaped stop and the rod (where as illustrated in FIG. 8 the cradle latch 214 eminently positions between 122 and 124 as illustrated in FIG. 8) such that the shaped stop and the rod restrict movement of the cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, facilitating both restriction of movement in how far 214 can progress with the rod 224 and able to be completely secured against 122 in FIG. 8).
However; it is considered in the alternate that Derenne may not explicitly disclose the three parts as “distinct” (entirely separated), and not merely just distinguishable.
Regardless, Derenne discloses the claimed invention except for the three parts being distinct (or otherwise entirely separate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the top part, side part, and bottom part distinct and in effect entirely separated, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Where there is a lack of criticality in applicant’s disclosure as to the parts being distinct as by ‘entirely separated’, as such term is not even used in applicant’s disclosure excepting the recent amendments to the claims. Where advantageously, making the parts separable and thus entirely ‘separate’ would avail better maintenance of the apparatus as the individual part which may fail may be replaced, and would in effect necessitate only a single constituent part of the removable part frame that has been damaged (the slot 168 of the bottom part in FIG. 8, and the fastening point (225) of the rod in the side panel in FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Derenne discloses (FIGS. 1-24) a patient support apparatus a patient support deck frame (correspondent 156-160 or 114-116; FIGS. 1-4), at least one guiding post (120; FIGS. 1-3) supported in relation to the at least one guiding post (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3), a stop (122 and 124; FIG. 3) supported in relation to the at least one guiding post (As illustrated in FIG. 3), at least one removable part (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3, with multiple removable parts but particularly those concerning 100), comprising a removable part body (the whole of removable body 100; FIG. 1) and a removable part frame (correspondent framework and inner constituents of 156-160; FIGS. 1-4), the removable part frame comprising at least a bottom part (lower surface of 156; FIG. 1-4), and a side part (side facing surfaces of 156; FIG. 1-4) distinct from the bottom part (as illustrated in FIGS. 3-8), a self-locking mechanism comprising a cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, correspondent latching systems eminently illustrated therein) supported for swinging or rocking movement in the bottom part to lock and unlock the removable part (as eminently demonstrated in FIGS. 3 with a pivotable drawer like stop/latch/rail/groove system), a control element located within the side part (correspondent at least 354; FIG. 16; 212: FIG. 8;), and a rod (at least 224; FIG. 8) connected to the control element (as illustrated in FIGS. 1-3 and 16), the control element being operable to affect movement of the cradle latch (as conveyed through FIGS. 1-5 and particularly 3-5), the cradle latch (At least 214; FIG. 8) being located in a space separating the shaped stop and the rod (where as illustrated in FIG. 8 the cradle latch 214 eminently positions between 122 and 124 as illustrated in FIG. 8) such that the shaped stop and the rod restrict movement of the cradle latch (as illustrated between FIGS. 1-16 and particularly FIGS. 3-8, facilitating both restriction of movement in how far 214 can progress with the rod 224 and able to be completely secured against 122 in FIG. 8).
However; it is considered in the alternate that Derenne may not explicitly disclose the three parts as “distinct” (entirely separated), and not merely just distinguishable.
Regardless, Derenne discloses the claimed invention except for the three parts being distinct (or otherwise entirely separate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the top part, side part, and bottom part distinct and in effect entirely separated, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179. Where there is a lack of criticality in applicant’s disclosure as to the parts being distinct as by ‘entirely separated’, as such term is not even used in applicant’s disclosure excepting the recent amendments to the claims. Where advantageously, making the parts separable and thus entirely ‘separate’ would avail better maintenance of the apparatus as the individual part which may fail may be replaced, and would in effect necessitate only a single constituent part of the removable part frame that has been damaged (the slot 168 of the bottom part in FIG. 8, and the fastening point (225) of the rod in the side panel in FIG. 8).
It is considered in the interest of conciseness that claims 2-8, and 10-13 are synonymously rejected as they have been previously in the 102 Rejection section of the instant Office Action as the parts and features remain synonymously located and synonymously used, and reference to any citation previously cited for claims 2-8 and 10-13 would be likewise synonymous and reference for such Rejection under 103 should refer to the mapping set forth in the 102 section previously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 20th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Particularly, applicant alleges (Remarks: pages 6-8) that the term ‘distinct’ obviates the prior art of record as applicant argues that distinct parts cannot be integral/uniform or of a homogenous body. However, Examiner disagrees with this characterization and narrow definition of the term ‘distinct’, as Merriam Webster clarifies for a definition of “distinct” as “distinguishable to the eye or mind as being discrete or not the same” and “distinct, separate, discrete mean not being each and every one the same” and “distinct indicates that something is distinguished by the mind or eye as being apart or different from others”. Wherein it is observed the top part indeed is distinguished and different from others (the side/bottom) by possessing deck fastening means and an upper plate eve that neither the side or bottom possess, the side part is also indeed distinguished and different from others (the top/bottom) by possessing fastening accommodations (225; FIG. 8) for the rod that neither the top or bottom possess, and the bottom possess a groove/guide (168; FIG. 8) that accommodates sliding of the frame thereon that neither the top or side possess. Therefore, they are not just mere surfaces indistinguishable from each other, but unique and thereby distinct parts of the frame body that facilitate vastly different functions individually. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner also considers in the alternate where the term ‘distinct’ must be treated as “entirely separate” or otherwise “non-homogenous”, “non-integral”, etc. Where under new 103 Rejections, it is considered well known to the art to make parts separable and thereby distinct, with added rationales provided in the pertinent section.
Applicant further alleges (Remarks: pages 7-8) that Derenne fails to provide for “a space” separating the shaped stop and the rod such that the shaped stop and the rod restrict movement of the cradle latch. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization of Derenne, as was previously set forth in the Final Office action mailed December 10th, 2025 “where ‘between’ may be understood as ‘amongst’ as one interpretation, to which the cradle latch is both amongst, but is also positioned between 122 and 124 as illustrated in FIG. 8” (emphasis added). While examiner withdraws the consideration of ‘between’ in light of applicant’s amendment in the instant Office Action, nonetheless, the cradle latch (214) is clearly located in a space, an open void, between the rod (224) and the shaped stop (122) as illustrated in FIG. 8. And respectfully, although applicant argues that 214 is merely the distal end of the locking arm 212, Derenne itself calls such engagement a latch “With particular reference to FIG. 8… the locking hook 214 is urged by sliding contact with the locking pin 220 into the central portion 126 of the latch mount 120 and then is drawn distally against the catch 122” (bolding added for emphasis) [0045]. Because 214 is operative with 120 though 122, 214 is itself part and parcel and crucial to operating as a latch.
Further respectfully, although applicant argues that such cradle latch may not achieve ‘rocking movement’, “rocking” is generally recognized as a matter of fulcrum, but clearly the latch 214 is capable of rotating up and down in a rotational/tilting motion which is synonymous with rocking. Furthermore, claim 9 also respectfully necessitates “for swinging or rocking movement”, and such motion of Derenne’s is eminently ‘swinging’ and may be interpreted and recognized as a rocking motion respectfully.
Therefore, Examiner is not respectfully persuaded at the present time that Derenne fails to avail the claimed features of applicant’s invention of claims 1 and 9. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 respectfully remain rejected under 102 with Derenne under one understanding of “distinct”; but in the interest of compact prosecution, claims 1-13 are additionally rejected under 103 in the alternate where “distinct” is considered as more narrowly defined as set forth in the 103 section above. In the interest of conciseness, claims 2-8 and 10-13 would be synonymously rejected as they have been under 102 Rejections previously with only the statement of rejection differing and Derenne offering all claimed limitations of said claims.
However, Examiner does respectfully recognize new claim 14 to introduce new matters that indeed to respectfully appear to obviate over Derenne, with considerations of such as set forth in the section immediately hereafter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims necessitate among other features effectively every feature of claims 1/9, while additionally necessitating “a self-locking mechanism comprising a cradle latch supported in the bottom part of the removable part frame at an anchoring point located at a middle portion of the cradle latch such that the cradle latch is supported for rocking movement about the anchoring point” and further “a rod connected to the control element and extending toward the bottom part of the frame”. While previously expressed ‘rocking’ may be interpreted as tilting with no other clarifying language, “supported in the bottom part of the removable part frame at an anchoring point located at a middle portion of the cradle latch” introduces consideration that supported is not attachement, but is considered as abutting, resting, supported thereon, and such being located at specificially a ‘middle portion’ places the fulcrum of the cradle latch particularly in a horizontal midpoint location, while simultaneously establishing that a rod is “extending toward the bottom part of the frame”, or that otherwise the rod is vertically oriented, features which in combination obviate the strongest prior art of record found in Derenne, and would likely necessitate some degree of impermissible hindsight to modify further without a countenancing reference that accounts for the considerably tight operational space of Derenne’s control elements, without impairing the ability to hook onto or affix to the complementing structures, and the leverages necessary for operation.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke F Hall whose telephone number is (571)272-5996. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/LUKE HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights