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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2013/0092810.
Regarding claims 1-10, the claims are identical to the published claims of ‘810 and the disclosure of ‘810 is substantially similar to the written description of the instantly claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herr (4254341) and further in view of Maruoka (6460232) and Rees (20070138415).
Regarding Claim 1, Herr teaches an system for suspending a personal radiation protection garment above a work surface defining an area, the suspension system comprising: a support member adapted to be positioned above the work surface (Figure 1, part 10a, 10b); a cable mechanically suspended from the support member (part 17); means for counter-balancing the weight of the personal radiation protection garment, the counter-balancing means attached to the cable (part 15); the personal radiation protection garment further comprising a body portion (Figure 1, part 20) having a front and a back (front side and back side, surrounding part 43) and a longitudinal axis (Figure 1, many axes can be constructed relative to the garment), a strap portion having an upper end and a lower end (shoulder portions underneath parts 41 and 42), the strap portion extending between and joining the front and the back of the body portion and with the body portion defining openings for passing a head and arms of a user (arms come out the sides, head comes out from part 43), and means for attaching the counter-balancing means to the personal radiation protection garment for suspending the personal radiation protection garment, the attaching means including means for disconnecting the garment from the counter-balancing means (part 16), wherein the personal radiation protection garment is supported in suspension when attached to the counter-balancing means, and wherein the personal radiation protection garment may be disconnected for releasing the personal radiation protection garment from suspension while still being worn by the user (unhook the hanger, Figure 1, part 16, still have head through opening 43 and still be wearing the apron).
Herr fails to explicitly teach wherein the disconnecting means is manually operable by one hand of a user and disposed within reach of the user while wearing the personal radiation protection garment attached to the counter-balancing means and wherein the personal radiation protection garment may be disconnected from the counter-balancing means by the one hand of the user while still being worn by the user.
Maruoka teaches a disconnecting means that is manually operable by one hand of a user and disposed within reach of the user and maybe disconnected by the one hand of the user (Figure 2, Figure 3).
Modification would have entailed swapping the disconnecting means of Herr for that of Maruoka in order to make the disconnecting means manually operable by one hand of a user and disposed within reach of the user while wearing the personal radiation protection garment attached to the counter- balancing means and wherein the personal radiation protection garment may be disconnected from the counter-balancing means by the one hand of the user while still being worn by the user.
It would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have made since it would have been a matter of a substitution of one known device (the hook of Herr) for another (buckle and straps of Maruoka) to yield predictable results. Additionally, a buckle would have been less likely to slip off a hook, such as the hanger combination of Herr would be at risk for doing. And a buckle such as that of Maruoka is also disclosed as being strong, so it would have been good for use in the radiation protection garment system. Lastly, a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options (in this case, trying buckles instead of hooks) within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense; see Pfizer, Ine. v. Apotex, Inc. (480 F.3d 1348, 82 USPQ2d, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Herr and Maruoka fail to teach an elongated reinforcing member secured to the back of the body portion and extending substantially between the lower ends of the strap portions transverse to the longitudinal axis of the body portion; and means for attaching the counter-balancing means to the reinforcing member.
Rees teaches wherein a personal radiation protection garment includes a body portion having a front (Figure 2c) and a back (Figure 2B) and a longitudinal axis, a strap portion having an upper end and a lower end, the strap portion extending between and joining the front and the back of the body portion (part of protective garment 20 in Figure 2c that passes over part 84, shown in dashed lines as being under the strap portions) and with the body portion defining openings for passing a head and arms of a user (parts 12 and 32 of Figure 2c), and an elongated reinforcing member secured to the back of the body portion and extending substantially between the lower ends of the strap portions transverse to the longitudinal axis of the body portion ([74] “shoulder plates 84 can be one piece that extends over both shoulders” embodiment); and means for attaching the counter-balancing means to the reinforcing member for suspending the personal radiation protection garment (Figure 2c, parts 8o are attached to 84 via 86).
Modification would have entailed using a reinforcing member between the shoulder straps of Herr and Maruoka.
It would have been an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have made since it would have added strength, ensured that the shoulder segments are “made of a material that can support at least a minimum weight of the suspended personal radiation protection garment” (Rees at [74]) and allowed less wear and tear on the material at points of high stress due to the connections to the hanger by spreading the weight over a larger area.
Regarding claim 2. Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the counter-balancing means comprises a zero gravity balancer (Herr, “no remaining weight at all” 2, 10-15).
Claim 3. Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 2, wherein the zero gravity balancer is operable to balance weight substantially equal to the weight of the personal radiation protection garment (Herr, 2, 10-15).
Claim 4. Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the counter-balancing means comprises a spring balancer (Herr, tension spring, part 15).
Regarding Claim 5, Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1.
They fail to further teach wherein the counter-balancing means comprises at least one counterweight.
Rees teaches wherein a counter-balancing means comprises at least one counterweight (Claim 8, part b).
Modification would have entailed using the at least one counterweight of Rees in the system of Herr, Maruoka, and Rees in place of the counterbalancing means of Herr and Maruoka.
It would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made since they are means designed to perform the same function (functional equivalents) and would have preserved the utility of the system of Herr and Maruoka, allowing the weight of the garment on the operator to be offset. The person of skill in the art might further look to the counter balancing means at hand or those obtained inexpensively / easily in order to select the means which would have been a good modification at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1. Rees teaches wherein a counter-balancing means comprises an air balancer (Claim 8, part e).
Modification would have entailed using the air balancer of Rees in the system of Herr, Maruoka, and Rees in place of the counterbalancing means disclosed in Herr.
It would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made since they are means designed to perform the same function (functional equivalents) and would have preserved the utility of the system of Herr and Maruoka, allowing the weight of the garment on the operator to be offset. The person of skill in the art might further look to the counter balancing means at hand or those obtained inexpensively / easily in order to select the means which would have been a good modification at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1. Rees teaches wherein a counter-balancing means is a pneumatic balancer (Claim 8, part d). Modification would have entailed using the pneumatic balancer of Rees in the system of Herr, Maruoka, and Rees in place of the counterbalancing means disclosed in Herr. It would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made since they are means designed to perform the same function (functional equivalents) and would have preserved the utility of the system of Herr and Maruoka, allowing the weight of the garment on the operator to be offset. The person of skill in the art might further look to the counter balancing means at hand or those obtained inexpensively / easily in order to select the means which would have been a good modification at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1. Rees teaches wherein the counter-balancing means comprises a spring motor (Claim 8, part f). Modification would have entailed using the spring motor of Rees in the system of Herr, Maruoka, and Rees in place of the counterbalancing means disclosed by Herr. It would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made since they are means designed to perform the same function (functional equivalents) and would have preserved the utility of the system of Herr and Maruoka, allowing the weight of the garment on theoperator to be offset. The person of skill in the art might further look to the counter balancing means at hand or those obtained inexpensively / easily in order to select the means which would have been a good modification at the time of the invention.
Claim 9. Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 1, wherein the support member comprises a rail having a longitudinal axis (Herr, part 10a, 10b); and a trolley disposed on the rail for movement relative to the rail along the longitudinal axis, wherein the cable is connected to the trolley (Herr, part 12).
Claim 10. Herr, Maruoka, and Rees teach the system as recited in claim 9, wherein the rail comprises a means for attaching to the ceiling of a room (Herr, part 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A VANORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 6 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/DAVID A VANORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881