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 .
Claim Objections
1. Claims 1, 3-4, and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 reads “An medical device” and should read “A medical device” without the “n” for better grammar.
Claim 1 line 9 misspells “first” as “fist” in the phrase “the fist portion”. Please correct to “the first portion”.
Claim 3 line 3 reads “portion are located at least one” and should read “portion is located at least one” as the word “are” grammatically implies a plurality, or in other words more than one, which is a different scope than the currently claimed “at least one”, and therefore should grammatically be the word “is”
Claim 4 lines 3 and 4 uses the phrases “first actuation arm including the first portion” and “ second actuation arm including the second portion” should be reworded as “first actuation arm includes the first portion” and “ second actuation arm includes the second portion” for clearer grammar.
Claim 10 line 1 reads “device is a ultrasound”. This should read as “device is an ultrasound” for proper grammar.
Claim 11 line 2 reads “receive at least a portion of the US transducer assembly”. The ultrasound transducer assembly is not part of the apparatus, and therefore this should be reworded as “receive at least a portion of a US transducer assembly” to match with apparatus claim language.
Claim 12 line 2 has the phrase “assembly defines and edge” and should read “assembly defines an edge” without the “d”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
2. Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2017/0115701; hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches of an apparatus comprising a base (hinge unit- 5) defining two pivot channels having axels passing through each pivot channel (first hinge shaft- 5a-1 and second hinge shaft- 5a-2), which are then in turn connected to a first and second portion respectively (first body- 1 and second body- 2; all of this structure is discussed in [0110]). The first and second portions are noted as having a gap ([0121]; see Figures 10A-10C). As shown in Figure 2, the first and second portion define a folding platform, each with their own interior face, and the base has a top surface. Figure 2 shows the folding platform in an open position (unfolding state- [0058]) where the first portion interior face and the second portion interior face are in substantially parallel alignment with the top surface of the base. Figure 3 shows the folding platform in a closed position (folding state- [0059]), where the first portion interior face and the second portion interior face are each substantially perpendicular to the top surface of the base, and the first portion interior face and the second portion interior face define a folding channel (shown as the line between bodies 1 and 2 beneath reference number 3). It is noted that the apparatus is movable between the open and closed positions ([0107]).
Regarding Applicant’s preamble of “an medical device folding apparatus”, this preamble does not add structure to claim 1. The medical device is “material worked upon”. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Since the “material worked upon” does not add structure to the claim, the preamble is merely an intended use and does not limit the structure of the apparatus claims. As such, the preamble does not differentiate over the prior art of Bae, and Bae anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the gap mentioned in claim 1 as shown in Figure 7 appears as a notch between the first and second axle, which is in communication with the folding channel.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in Figure 6, both the first and second portion define a perimeter. Bae teaches of at least one engagement tab (locking members- 5c; plurality mentioned in [0129]), that as seen in Figure 7 are engaged at the folding channel, which is part of the perimeter of the first portion and second portion.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Figure 3, the folding channel is substantially U-shaped.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3. Claims 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Targus (NPL YouTube Video- ‘14” Commercial Grade Form-Fit Cover for Dell Latitude 5410/5400 (THZ879GL)’; dated 07/22/2021; PDF included with Office Action).
Regarding claim 4, the first and second portions of Bae can be interpreted as actuation arms (as shown in Figure 10B), which includes their interior faces. Bae does not teach of the protrusion and associated limitations of claim 4. Targus teaches of a cover for a folding apparatus (black rubber trim of laptop as seen in Screenshot 1) that includes perimeter protrusion (Screenshots 2-3) that come into contact while in the closed position to prevent interior face contact (Screenshot 4). When a folding apparatus in the open position, each protrusion extends in the vertical direction. The advantage of Targus’s cover is for additional edge and corner protection (Video Description in Screenshot 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to add the cover and engagement tabs of Targus in the apparatus of Bae for the advantage of additional edge and corner protection.
Regarding claim 7, Bae does not teach of a plurality of engagement tabs on the perimeters of the first and second portion that are spaced apart from each other. Targus teaches of a cover for a folding apparatus (black rubber trim of laptop as seen in Screenshot 1) that includes a plurality of engagement tabs that are spaced apart (the tabs of each corner- see Screenshot 5) that come into contact while in the closed position to prevent interior face contact (Screenshot 4). The advantage of Targus’s cover is for additional edge and corner protection (Video Description in Screenshot 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to add the cover and engagement tabs of Targus in the apparatus of Bae for the advantage of additional edge and corner protection.
Regarding claim 8, in applying Targus as in claim 7, when the folding apparatus is in the closed position each of the plurality of engagement tabs of the first portion are in contact with an opposing engagement tab of the plurality of engagement tabs of the second portion (corner tabs are in contact with corner tabs- Screenshot 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 6, and 9-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, Bae does not teach or render obvious that in the closed position the first portion and the second portion define at least one port in fluid communication with the folding channel
Regarding claim 9, Bae does not teach or render obvious that at least one of the spaces between the plurality of engagement tabs defines a port in fluid communication with the folding channel.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745