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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 05/06/2026 have been carefully considered. The newly added claims incorporating the previously indicated allowable subject matter and further defining the strain sensor plate have overcome the previously cited prior art. The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the previous rejections but raise new issues under U.S.C. §112.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added limitation “extends from a coextensive portion on the first weightbearing side and floats towards a second weight bearing side” doesn’t appear in the specification as filed. Applicant asserts that support for the amendment could be found in ¶¶ [0031] and [0036] of the specification and figures 3 and 4. These passages and figures describe the flex spring as “the flex spring 70 is at least partially annular in shape. For example, the outer spring perimeter 72 may extend from a coextensive portion 80 that connects to arms 81 of the first weight bearing side 62 along a freestanding portion 82. The freestanding portion 82 may extend circumferentially between 180° and 360°”. It appears Applicant is using “floats towards a second weight bearing side” as synonymous with “freestanding”, however Examiner disagrees. In the context of a strain gauge flex spring, it is unclear what “floats towards” means as it appears to be an action verb rather than a descriptor for a noun. Figures 3 and 4 show the flex spring as being coextensive with and supported by the strain plate for a portion of the circumference while the remaining portion is unsupported. Merriam-Webster defines the verb “to float” as “to rest on the surface of or be suspended in a fluid or to drift or move on or through or as if on or through a fluid”, neither definition appears to be synonymous with “freestanding”.
The same rejection applies mutatis mutandis to claim 8 which uses the same verbiage.
Claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added limitation “extends from a coextensive portion on the first weightbearing side and floats towards a second weight bearing side” is unclear. The term “floats towards” as it pertains to the portion of the flex spring that is not coextensive with the strain sensor plate is confusing as it is not readily apparent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “float towards”. Merriam-Webster defines the verb “to float” as “to rest on the surface of or be suspended in a fluid or to drift or move on or through or as if on or through a fluid”, neither definition appears to unambiguously apply to the present structure. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The same rejection applies mutatis mutandis to claim 8 which uses the same verbiage.
Claims 2-13 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 25, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a patient operating table as claimed wherein the strain sensor plate defines a depression and a control unit in operable communication with the strain gauge is located in the depression in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 26 is allowed based on its dependence on claim 25.
Regarding independent claim 27, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a patient operating table as claimed comprising a strain sensor plate having a first weight bearing side that includes a flex spring with an annular shape extending from a coextensive portion on one side to a freestanding portion on an opposite side that extends annularly from the coextensive portion, wherein the flex spring is located at least partially within an outer perimeter of the strain sensor plate in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claims 28-30 are allowed based on their dependence on claim 27.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights