DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/13/26 has been entered.
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) 1-5,7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by McRorie(US10004327).
[claim 1] McRorie teaches a modular medical monitor mount(fig 1a, the mount shown being capable of being used in a medical environment), comprising: a base(21); a medical monitoring device mount(24); and an adjustable stand(30) mechanically engaging the base and the medical monitoring device mount, the stand including: a shaft(32,34,36) on which the medical monitoring device mount is positioned having a first end(lower end of 32) most proximal to the base and a second end(upper end of 36) most distal from the base; and a height control mechanism, further including: a pneumatic cylinder(80) engagingly connected to the shaft at the first end(at 76) and operable to offset a medical monitoring device weight and bias the position of the medical monitoring device mount to maintain a medical monitoring device at an adjusted height; and a braking mechanism(142,144) for fixing the position of the medical monitoring device mount at the adjusted height.
[claim 2] wherein the shaft extends upwardly in a vertical direction from the base(fig 2).
[claim 3] the pneumatic cylinder is interposed between the first end (lower end of 32) and the base such that the first end is connected to a piston(85) of the pneumatic cylinder.
[claim 5] wherein the shaft is a one-part shaft(36) and the pneumatic cylinder is interposed between the one-part shaft and the base(fig 4).
[claim 7] wherein the shaft is a two-part shaft including: a first part(30) and a second part(40); and the first part and the second part are jointed for articulation of the shaft.
[claim 8] wherein the braking mechanism locks the relative positions of a first part(34) and a second part(36) of the shaft by default(C5 L6-11).
[claim 9] wherein the braking mechanism includes a lever(148) that swivels or pivots between an actuated position and a released position.
[claim 10] wherein the braking mechanism includes a handle(148) that rotates between an actuated position and a released position.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai(US9717328).
[claim 18] Tsai teaches a modular medical monitor mount(fig 1, disclosed mount can be used in a medical environment, or with a monitor displaying medical information), comprising: a base(1); a medical monitoring device mount(39); and means for adjusting and fixing the height of the medical monitoring device mount(2,3,4,5,8) mechanically engaging the base and the medical monitoring device mount, the adjusting and fixing including biasing the position of the medical monitoring device mount to maintain a medical monitoring device mounted to the medical monitoring device mount at an adjusted height and a shaft(3) having a first end(lower end) and a second end(upper end), wherein the shaft is engagingly connected to the means for adjusting and fixing the height of the medical monitoring device mount at the first end(connected to 2) and connected to the medical monitoring device mount at the second end(fig 2).
[claim 19] wherein the means for adjusting and fixing comprises an adjustable stand(2,3).
[claim 20] wherein the adjustable stand further comprises: a height control mechanism, further including: a pneumatic cylinder(4) operable to offset a medical monitoring device weight and bias the position of the medical monitoring device mount to maintain the medical monitoring device at an adjusted height; and a braking mechanism(5,8,43) for fixing the position of the medical monitoring device mount at the adjusted height.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 11,13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRorie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dewees(US8210109).
[claim 11] McRorie teaches a modular medical monitor mount as detailed above, however McRorie does not teach that the braking mechanism includes a clamp that when actuated clamps one of the first part and the second part of the shaft to limit movement and hold the device monitor at the adjusted height.
Dewees teaches a similar adjustable device mount, which uses a braking mechanism including a clamp(13) to clamp onto a first part(7) to limit movement of the first part relative a second part(10) to hold the device at an adjusted height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the clamp assembly of Dewees with the modular medical monitor mount of McRorie, as this would provide a means for limiting movement of the device once it has been set at an adjusted position, and would merely be using known elements for their known functions.
[claim 13] McRorie teaches a modular medical monitor mount as detailed above, however McRorie may not teach wherein the pneumatic cylinder includes a pressure adjustment to accommodate different medical monitoring device weights. Dewees teaches a similar adjustable device mount with a pneumatic cylinder(4) and further teaches a pressure adjustment(C2 L29-33), which would provide different counterbalance forces to accommodate different supported devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the pressure adjustment of Dewees with the mount of McRorie, as this would provide a means for adjusting the counterbalance force of the pneumatic spring, as taught by Dewees.
[claim 14] when arranged as above, Dewees further teaches that the pressure adjustment comprises a valve assembly to bleed or increase gas content in the pneumatic cylinder to adjust the pressure within the cylinder(C2 L29-33).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRorie as applied to claim 1 above.
[claim 12] McRorie teaches a medical monitoring device mount(24) which as seen in figure 2 has two sets of four mounting apertures located in a square configuration. McRorie however does not specifically state that the device mount comports with the VESA interface standard. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the device mount such that it complied with known standard configurations, such as VESA interface standards, as this would allow the device mount to be readily used with any monitor designed with VESA interface standards.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai(US9717328) in view of Rossini et al.(US11284711).
[claim 15] Tsai teaches a method for use of a modular monitor mount(fig 1), comprising: mounting(C5 L7-9) a monitoring device(seen in fig 13) to a device mount(7,39) of the modular monitor mount, wherein the medical monitoring device mount comprises a shaft(3) engagingly affixed to a height control mechanism(4) at a first end(upper end, fig 4) and connected to the medical monitoring device mount at a second end(lower end, fig 10): altering the height of the mounted monitoring device(C5 L13-23), the position of the mounted monitoring device being biased by offsetting the weight thereof; and fixing the height of the mounted monitoring device(C5 L13-23). Tsai however may not specifically teach that the monitoring device is a medical monitoring device. The use of monitors and keyboards in medical environments is well known, with Rossini teaching mobile work stations using monitors and keyboards are often used in medical facilities(C1 L24-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the method and mount of Tsai with a medical monitoring device, as this would merely be using the known method of using a monitor mount taught by Tsai, in a medical environment, where monitors are known to be used as taught by Rossini.
[claim 16] further comprising adjusting the pressure in a pneumatic cylinder(4) to accommodate different monitoring device weights(C4 L64-C5 L5).
[claim 17] further comprising articulating the position of the shaft(3) to which the device mount is affixed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claim 1, applicant argues that the shaft of McRorie(US10004327) does not have a first end engagingly connected to the pneumatic cylinder as recited in claim 1. The examiner disagrees, as seen in figure 4 of McRorie, the shaft(32,34,36) is engagingly connected to pneumatic cylinder(80) at a first end of the shaft(lower end of section 32, with the end(82) of the pneumatic cylinder(80) engaging cap element(72) of the shaft section(32).
Applicant makes the same argument with regards to Tsai(US9717328), however as detailed above, figure 4 of Tsai clearly shows the pneumatic cylinder(4) engagingly connected to the first end(upper end) of the shaft(3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632