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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-22 are pending in this application. Claims 3, and 11-20 are withdrawn, Claims 2, 6, and 8-9 are cancelled, and Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, and 21-22 have been examined on the merits.
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, 7, 10, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennhauser (US20200308785A1) in view of Zahorec (US20100290856A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Sennhauser teaches A constraint device (safety net; see Fig. 1 which is capable as e.g. being wrapped around an object for constrainment), comprising: a patient section configured to be placed under a patient (corresponding disclosure in at least [0004], where the device can be placed under the user “The invention proceeds from a safety net, in particular for catching heavy loads, preferably dynamic impact bodies”);
and one or more peripheral sections extending from the patient section configured to support an expandable portion of an ultrasound coupling assembly (corresponding disclosure in at least Figure 1, where there are peripheral sections, which are able to support an expandable portion of an ultrasound coupling assembly [0004]; Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant applicant, Sennhauser teaches a constraint device comprising one or more peripheral sections (which is the same as applicant's disclosed constraint device; [0149]) and thus would be expected to be capable of performing the intended use claimed, e.g. A constraint device, comprising: a patient section configured to be placed under a patient; and one or more peripheral sections extending from the patient section configured to support an expandable portion of an ultrasound coupling assembly)
PNG
media_image1.png
304
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Sennhauser
and including one or more engagement features configured to attach the constraint device to a frame of the ultrasound coupling assembly (corresponding disclosure in at least [0048] and Figure 5, where there are fasteners, which are able to attach to an expandable portion of an ultrasound coupling assembly “The net and rope construction 62 a comprises a wall fastening element 78 a”; Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant applicant, Sennhauser teaches a constraint device comprising engagement features (which is the same as applicant's disclosed constraint device; [0143]) and thus would be expected to be capable of performing the intended use claimed, e.g. A constraint device, comprising: one or more engagement features configured to attach the constraint device to a frame of the ultrasound coupling assembly.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
95
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sennhauser
Sennhauser does not teach the elastomeric material having a first mesh structure comprising a plurality of openings and the one or more peripheral sections comprising an elastomeric material having a second mesh structure comprising a plurality of openings, the second mesh structure being different than the first mesh structure.
Zahorec, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (net-like structures) of the patient section comprising an elastomeric material having a first mesh structure comprising a plurality of openings (corresponding disclosure in at least [0024] and Figure 3, where there is an elastic material with a mesh structure, which has a plurality of openings “By way of example, the elastic member 40 comprises an elastic cord threaded through the top end 42 of each of the front net 24 and back net 26 of the storage area 22. This elastic cord may be formed of any suitable material”)
the one or more peripheral sections comprising an elastomeric material having a second mesh structure comprising a plurality of openings, the second mesh structure being different than the first mesh structure (corresponding disclosure in at least Figure 3 and [0024], where there is a peripheral section, which comprises an elastic material with a second mesh structure that is different; the area annotated in the Figure 3 is interpreted to be the second structure, which is also an elastic material that is different (different part) from the first mesh structure “the longitudinal elasticity providing means comprises an elastic member 40 attached to a top end 42 of each of the front net 24 and back net 26. This elastic member 40 may comprise any suitable means” and further in [0024], where the peripheral section also has an elastomeric material, the bungee-type cord, which is a part of the section “This elastic cord may be formed of any suitable material. For example, the cord shown is formed of a Bungee-type cord”).
PNG
media_image3.png
381
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Zahorec
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated a first and second mesh structure with a plurality of openings comprising an elastic material as taught by Zahorec. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because the elasticity allows for the expansion of the device when it’s filled.
Regarding Claim 7, the combined references of Sennhauser and Zahorec teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Sennhauser further teaches wherein a flexibility of the constraint device is capable of being less than a flexibility of the expandable portion of the ultrasound coupling assembly (corresponding disclosure in at least [0006], where the device is flexible, but can be less flexible than that of the assembly, depending on the particular ultrasound coupling assembly applied; It is respectfully noted that the “expandable portion of the ultrasound coupling assembly” is not positively recited (see Claim 1 wherein the patient section is “configured to support an expandable portion of an ultrasound assembly.”) Applicant is respectfully reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this, the flexibility of the constraint device is capable of being less than a flexibility of the expandable portion depending on the material being used and since flexibility is not specified nor the material, the device is capable of being less flexible. ”).
Regarding Claim 10, Sennhauser and Zahorec teach the limitations of Claim 1 and Sennhauser further teaches wherein the one or more peripheral sections have a first width proximal to the central section and have a second, larger width distal to the central section (corresponding disclosure in at least Figure 1, where it is shown structurally that the first and second sections of the device have a second larger width distal to the central section; Figure 3C of the present application is also shown below in comparison).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Sennhauser
PNG
media_image4.png
443
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of the present application
Regarding Claim 21, Sennhauser and Zahorec teach the limitations of Claim 1 and Zahorec further teaches wherein the plurality of openings of the first mesh structure of the patient section are elongated (corresponding disclosure in at least [0024] and Figure 3, where the structure is elongated “ The longitudinal elasticity enables storage area 22 to move in the direction of double arrow A.”).
Regarding Claim 22, Sennhauser and Zahorec teach the limitations of Claim 1 and Zahorec further teaches wherein the patient section is configured to elongate along a transverse axis of the patient (corresponding disclosure in at least [0024] and Figure 3, where the section is elongated along a transverse axis as shown by Figure 3, where A is interpreted as the transverse axis “The longitudinal elasticity enables storage area 22 to move in the direction of double arrow A”)
PNG
media_image5.png
154
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Zahorec
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennhauser (US20200308785A1) and Zahorec (US20100290856A1) as applied in Claim 1 and in further view of Thommen (US5524875A).
Regarding Claim 4, Sennhauser and Zahorec teach the limitations of Claim 1 and the first and second peripheral sections comprising a plurality of openings (corresponding disclosure in at least Figure 1 of Sennhauser), but does not teach the hexagonal pattern.
Thommen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (safety nets), where the device includes a hexagonal pattern (corresponding disclosure in at least [col 2, line 15], where the netting is a hexagonal pattern “comprised of woven rope netting or chain link fencing, namely diagonal chain link or hexagonal mesh fencing”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the hexagonal pattern as taught by Thommen. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because the design of a hexagon allows for the openings to be closely spaced together, which provides many benefits including minimizing the amount of unused space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the Drawing objections have been considered and are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Claims.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112b rejections have been considered and are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections with respect to claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KAITLYN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/K.E.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights