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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-3 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/22/2026. Claims 1, 4-13, and 15-20 are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the pleats” should be “wherein the one or more pleats” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“attachment means (written specification: page 6, lines 18-20)” in claims 6-7
“support structure (written specification: page 7, lines 1-10)” in claim 10
“attachment means (written specification: page 7, lines 27-34)” in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 and 13 are 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.
The term “about” in claim 5 renders the claim indefinite. Examiner proposes removing the term “about”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the drape is free of sidewalls positioned between the front panel and the rear panel” renders the claim unclear. Examiner is unsure whether the drape have no sidewalls or the device that the drape is applied over doesn’t have sidewalls. Examiner examined this as best understood.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaska (US 20100275929 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaska discloses a drape (10 – figure 1/figure 2, a sterile surgical C-arm radiological imaging unit drape: paragraph 0027) for providing a sterile field around a portion of an imaging device (the drape [10] is for a C-arm radiological imaging unit drape: paragraph 0027), the drape (10) comprising: an upper panel (46 – figure 2, an upper wall: paragraph 0032) having an upper surface (A – see annotated figure 1, an upper surface of the upper panel) and a lower surface (B – see annotated figure 1, a lower surface of the upper panel); a front panel (40 – figure 2, the front face/proximal side: paragraph 0032) having an outer surface (C – see annotated figure 1, an outer surface of the front panel) and an inner surface (D – see annotated figure 1, an inner surface of the front panel); and a rear panel (42 – figure 2, the rear face/distal side: paragraph 0032) having an outer surface (E – see annotated figure 1, outer surface of the rear panel) and an inner surface (F – see annotated figure 1, inner surface of the rear panel), wherein a side edge of the rear panel (G – see annotated figure 2, side edge of the rear panel) and a side edge of the front panel (H – see annotated figure 2, side edge of the front panel) define an opening (74 – figure 10, a pocket sized for receipt of the lower imaging head: paragraph 0037) therebetween (see annotated figure 2, the opening [74] is between the side edge of the rear panel [G] and side edge of the front panel [H]).
PNG
media_image1.png
751
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1: drape of Kaska
PNG
media_image2.png
392
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2: figure showing edges of the panels
Regarding claim 6, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein attachment means (54 – figure 2, hook and loop fasteners or other suitable fastening mechanisms: paragraph 0032) are positioned on the upper surface of the upper panel (A) adjacent an upper edge of the front panel (64 – figure 5, upper edge of the front panel: paragraph 0034) (see annotated figure 1, the attachment means [54] are positioned on the upper surface of the upper panel [A] adjacent to the upper edge of the front panel [64]), and wherein corresponding attachment means (54 – figure 2, hook and loop fasteners or other suitable fastening mechanisms: paragraph 0032) are positioned on the upper surface of the upper panel (A) adjacent an upper edge of the rear panel (68 – figure 5 upper edge of the rear panel: paragraph 0035) (see annotated figure 1, the attachment means [54] are positioned on the upper surface of the upper panel [A] adjacent to the upper edge of the front panel [64]).
Regarding claim 7, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 6. Kaska further discloses wherein the attachment means (54) on the upper surface of the upper panel (A) adjacent the upper edge of the front panel (64) are aligned with the corresponding attachment means (54) on the upper surface of the upper panel (A) adjacent an upper edge of the rear panel (68) when the drape (10) is folded inwardly along one or more fold lines (48 – figure 5, pleated portions of the drape [10]: paragraph 0032) to maintain the sterility of the upper panel (46) prior to use of the drape (10) in a surgical procedure (figure 5/9, the attachment means [54] are aligned with each other and fasten to each other; while in the partially folded, collapsed position, the attachment means [54] are used to releasable fix the drape [10] in its folded position via the fold lines [48], until desired to unfold the drape [10] for use: paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 8, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein the upper panel (46) includes one or more pleats (48 – figure 5, pleated portions of the drape [10]: paragraph 0032), wherein the pleats are expandable outwardly when the drape (10) is in use to surround the portion of the imaging device (figure 9, when the rear panel [42] is pulled and expanded laterally outwardly away from the operating table, the elastic members are biased into an extended position by the externally applied pulling force and the pleated portion [48] of the upper panel [46] is caused to unfold upwardly and expand; this in turn crates a pocket [74] that allows the upper panel [46] to surround the lower imaging head therein: paragraph 0032/0040).
Regarding claim 9, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein at least one handle (72 – figure 5, a formable member that can act as a handle to grasp the drape while the C-arm is being moved from one location to another: paragraph 0036) is present on the rear panel (42) (figure 5, the one handle [72] is present on the rear panel).
Regarding claim 10, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein a support structure (72 – figure 5, a formable member that can be a strip of metal or foil: paragraph 0036) is attached at an upper edge of the rear panel (68 – figure 5 upper edge of the rear panel: paragraph 0035), a lower edge of the rear panel (70 – figure 5, lower free edge: paragraph 0036), or a combination thereof (figure 5, the support structure [72] can be attached at the upper edge of the rear panel or at the lower edge of the rear panel [70]: paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 12, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein the front panel (40) is positioned a distance away from a front edge of the upper panel (68 – figure 5, front edge of the upper panel: paragraph 0035) toward the rear panel (42) (figure 5, the front panel [40] is positioned a distance away from the front edge of the upper panel [68] toward the rear panel [42]).
Regarding claim 13, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein the drape (1) is free of sidewalls positioned between the front panel (40) and the rear panel (42) (figure 10, there are no sidewalls between the front panel [40] and rear panel [42]; the hanging part [44 – figure 9/10] between the front panel [40] and the rear panel [42] are panels of the drape material, not sidewalls: paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 15, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kaska further discloses wherein the upper panel (46), the front panel (40), the rear panel (42), or a combination thereof is translucent, transparent, or radiolucent (the upper panel [46], front panel [40], rear panel [42] are constructed of clear plastic material: paragraph 0027/0031).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20160100011 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a drape (1 – figure 6, surgical fabric: paragraph 0038) for providing a sterile field around a portion of an imaging device (figure 6, the drape [1] is deployed to cover the patient and C-arm head: paragraph 0042-0043), the drape (1) comprising: an upper panel (210 – figure 6, a section that extends from the first cover [100 – figure 6]; it can have a folding structure: paragraph 0044) having an upper surface (N – see annotated figure 3, upper surface of the upper panel) and a lower surface (O – see annotated figure 3, lower surface of the lower panel); a front panel (100 – figure 6, surgical cloth that covers the body of a patient: paragraph 0040) having an outer surface (P – see annotated figure 3, outer surface of the front panel) and an inner surface (Q – see annotated figure 3, inner surface of the front panel); and a rear panel (220 – figure 6, a section that extends from the upper panel [210]: paragraph 0052) having an outer surface (R – see annotated figure 3, outer surface of the rear panel) and an inner surface (S – see annotated figure 3, inner surface of the rear panel), wherein a side edge of the rear panel (T – see annotated figure 3, side edge of the rear panel) and a side edge of the front panel (U – see annotated figure 3, side edge of the front panel) define an opening therebetween (see annotated figure 3/figure 10, there is an opening between the side edge of the rear panel [T] and side edge of the front panel [U]).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3: drape of Kim showing the different surfaces
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein an attachment means (215 – figure 10, a fixing part that is an adhesive: paragraph 0074) is disposed on the lower surface of the upper panel (O) adjacent the front panel (100) (see annotated figure 3/figure 10, the attachment means [215] is an adhesive that is disposed on the lower surface of the upper panel [O] adjacent to the front panel [100]: paragraph 0073).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaska (US 20100275929 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Kaska fails to explicitly disclose wherein the front panel has a rectangular shape.
Kaska teaches wherein the front panel (40) has a rectangular shape (figure 5/9/10/10a, the front panel [40] can be rectangular without a U-shaped profile at the lower free edge [56 – figure 3]; it was mentioned that the U-shaped cutout profile can be provided, which implies that it is an optional choice: paragraph 0033).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the front panel of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, applicant places no criticality on the shape claimed, indicating simply that the front panel shape has a “rectangular or linear shape” (written specification: page 2, line 8).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaska (US 20100275929 A1) in view of Bennaars et al. (US 20240374335 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Kaska fails to disclose wherein the rear panel and the upper panel each include a linear section extending from an end point of a curved section towards the front panel, wherein an angle formed between an edge defined by the linear section and an axis extending from the end point of the curved section and intersecting with a front edge of the upper panel to form a 90 degree angle therewith ranges from about 5 degrees to about 45 degrees as measured from the axis.
Bennaars et al. teaches wherein an analogous rear panel (112 – figure 1F, stockinette seal: paragraph 0040) and an analogous upper panel (110 – figure 1F, surgical incise seal: paragraph 0044) each include a linear section (I/J – see annotated figure 4, linear section of the rear panel [I] and upper panel [J]) extending from an end point of a curved section (see annotated figure 4, each linear section [I/J] extends from an end point of a curved section) towards an analogous front panel (108 – figure 1F, drape seal: paragraph 0044), wherein an angle (K – see annotated figure 4, angle) formed between an edge defined by the linear section (I/J) and an axis (L – see annotated figure 4, axis) extending from the end point of the curved section (see annotated figure 4, the axis [L] extends from the end point of the curved section) and intersecting with a front edge of an analogous upper panel (M – see annotated figure 4, a front edge of the upper panel) to form a 90 degree angle (the axis [L] intersects with the front edge of the upper panel [M] and forms a 90 degree angle) therewith ranges from about 5 degrees to about 45 degrees as measured from the axis (L).
PNG
media_image4.png
519
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4: drape of Bennaars et al.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the rear panel and upper panel of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Further, applicant places no criticality on the shape claimed, indicating simply that the rear panel and upper panel has “an angle α formed between an edge defined by the linear section and an axis extending from the end point of the curved section and intersecting with the front edge of the upper panel to form a 90 degree angle therewith can range from about 5 degrees to about 45 degrees as measured from the axis” (written specification: page 2, lines 12-15).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaska (US 20100275929 A1) in view of Puentes et al. (US 20170105807 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Kaska fails to disclose wherein the upper panel, the front panel, the rear panel, or a combination thereof is formed from a nonwoven material.
Puente et al. teaches wherein an analogous upper panel (10 – figure 2, base panel: paragraph 0039-0040), an analogous front panel (43 – figure 2, base panel extensions: paragraph 0039-0040), an analogous rear panel (44 – figure 2, base panel extensions: paragraph 0039-0040), or a combination thereof is formed from a nonwoven material (the upper panel [10], front panel [43], and rear panel [44] are made of nonwoven material: paragraph 0039-0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper panel, front panel, and the rear panel of Kaska to be formed from a nonwoven material as taught by Puente et al. in order to provide a drape that has an improved upper panel, front panel, and the rear panel that is fluid repellent to prevent the passage of fluids, as well as bacterial and viral contaminants, across a sterile barrier: paragraph 0003/0040).
Regarding claim 17, Kaska in view of Puente et al. discloses the invention as discussed in claim 16. Puente et al. further teaches wherein the nonwoven material comprises a spunbond material, a meltblown material, or a combination thereof (the nonwoven material comprises a single web, or an assembly or laminate of multiple webs, formed of individual randomly laid fibers by using a spunlaid, thermobonded, spunbonded, meltblown or bonded carded web process: paragraph 0040).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaska (US 20100275929 A1) in view of Rogers (US 20130167847 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Kaska fails to disclose wherein the upper panel, the front panel, the rear panel, or a combination thereof is formed from a film.
Rogers teaches wherein an analogous upper panel (W – see annotated figure 5, upper panel), an analogous front panel (13 – see annotated figure 5, section of clear polyethylene: paragraph 0031), an analogous rear panel (V – see annotated figure 5, rear panel), or a combination thereof is formed from a film (the upper panel [W], front panel [13], and rear panel [V] are made from sheets of clear polyethylene: paragraph 0017/0024/0031/0051).
PNG
media_image5.png
487
513
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5: drape of Rogers
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the upper panel, front panel, and rear panel of Kaska et al. to be formed from a film as taught by Rogers in order to provide a drape that has an improved upper panel, front panel, and rear panel that allows technicians or surgeons to see clearly through the drape and prevent the equipment from exposure to surgical biohazard (paragraph abstract/0024/0051, Rogers).
Regarding claim 19, Kaska in view of Rogers discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. Rogers further teaches wherein the film comprises polyethylene (the film comprises polyethylene: paragraph 0017/0024/0031/0051).
Regarding claim 20, Kaska discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Kaska fails to disclose wherein the drape is sterilizable.
Rogers teaches wherein an analogous drape (10 – figure 2A, an accordion styled drape material that covers equipment: paragraph 0031-0032) is sterilizable (the drape [10] is made of polyethylene-based fabric that is suitable for sterilization: paragraph 0024/0031/0051).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drape of Kaska et al. to be sterilizable as taught by Rogers in order to provide an improved drape that prevents infections and keeps equipment sterilized in an operating room (paragraph abstract/0002/0008, Rogers).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK whose telephone number is (703)756-4605. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571) 270-3076. 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.
/ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786