DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/837,727 filed 8/12/2024 which is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/053179 02/09/2023, which claims priority to GERMANY 10 2022 103 151.9 2/10/2022.
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
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. The requirement is withdrawn.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of a force” in claim 8
“traction means” in claims 11 and 12
“means of a holding system” in claim 14
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-5 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0343369 A1)(hereinafter Nakamura).
RE Claim 1: Nakamura discloses a system for an operator (para 0185) comprising:
a support device for holding at least one body part of the operator (para 0185; Fig 9), which comprises a control device that is configured to switch the support device between a movement mode and a holding mode (para 0186; Fig 10), wherein the supported body part of the operator can be moved in an adjustment direction in the movement mode (para 0119; Figs 4 and 10) and is held in a position and/or orientation by the support device in the holding mode;
a release device that is communicatively connected with the control device and which is configured to switch the support device from the holding mode into the movement mode (para 0190; Fig 10);
wherein the control device is configured to switch the support device from the movement mode into the holding mode if the supported body part of the operator takes an at least substantially constant position and/or orientation for a predetermined time (para 0195; Fig 10).
RE Claim 2: Nakamura discloses the holding system according to claim 1,
wherein the support device comprises a sensor unit for detection of movements of the supported body part (para 0190; Fig 10), wherein the control device is configured to receive sensor data from the sensor unit and to switch the support device from the movement mode into the holding mode based on the sensor data (para 0190; Fig 10).
RE Claims 3 and 16: Nakamura discloses the holding system according to claims 1 (and 2),
wherein the release device comprises at least one operating element for releasing the movement mode (para 0190; Fig 10).
RE Claims 4 and 17: Nakamura discloses the holding system according to claims 1 (and 16),
wherein the release device is arranged, so that the at least one operating element can be reached by the operator at least with a foot (para 0190; Fig 10).
RE Claims 5 and 18: Nakamura discloses the holding system according to claims 1 (and 17),
wherein the support device comprises at least one actuator that is configured to transfer the support device at least in one adjustment direction in the holding mode and/or in the movement mode (para 0199; Figs 4 and 10).
RE Claim 14: Nakamura discloses a method for holding an operator by means of a holding system for an operator (para 0185) comprising:
a support device for holding at least one body part of the operator (para 0185; Fig 9),
which comprises a control device that is configured to switch the support device between a movement mode and a holding mode (para 0186; Fig 10),
wherein the supported body part of the operator can be moved in an adjustment direction in the movement mode and is held in a position and/or orientation by the support device in the holding mode (para 0119; Figs 4 and 10);
a release device that is communicatively connected with the control device and which is configured to switch the support device from the holding mode into the movement mode (para 0190; Fig 10);
wherein the control device is configured to switch the support device from the movement mode into the holding mode if the supported body part of the operator takes an at least substantially constant position and/or orientation for a predetermined time (para 0195; Fig 10),
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
Holding at least one supported body part of the operator in the position and/or direction (para 0185);
Releasing the movement mode in which the supported body part of the operator can be moved at least in one adjustment direction (para 0119; Figs 4 and 10); as well as
Switching from the movement mode into the holding mode, if the supported body part of the operator takes the at least substantially constant position and/or orientation for the predetermined time (para 0190; Fig 10).
RE Claim 15: Nakamura discloses the method according to claim 14,
wherein releasing of the movement mode in the holding mode can be carried out by foot (para 0190; Fig 10).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Anastasov (US 2011/0163577 A1)(hereinafter Anastasov).
RE Claim 6: Nakamura discloses the holding system according to claim 2.
Nakamura discloses a seat (at least see Fig 2A), but does not explicitly teach a first adjustment device for adjusting a seat height.
However, Anastasov teaches a holding system (surgeon chair system) (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the support device comprises an operating chair having a seat and a first adjustment device for adjusting a seat height (para 0034; Figs 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura in view of Anastasov such that wherein the support device comprises an operating chair having a seat and a first adjustment device for adjusting a seat height as taught by Anastasov for the advantages of adjustability during procedures (Nakamura para 0003).
RE Claim 7: Nakamura as modified discloses the holding system according to claim 6,
Anastasov further discloses wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one sensor element located in the first adjustment device, wherein the sensor element is configured to detect a seat height (para 0043-0044).
RE Claim 8: Nakamura as modified discloses the holding system according to claim 6,
further discloses wherein the first adjustment device is configured to support a movement of the operator by means of a force in the movement mode (para 0119; Figs 4 and 10).
RE Claim 19: Nakamura discloses the holding system according to claim 18,
Nakamura discloses a seat (at least see Fig 2A), but does not explicitly teach a first adjustment device for adjusting a seat height.
However, Anastasov teaches a holding system (surgeon chair system) (analogous art) and further teaches wherein the support device comprises an operating chair having a seat and a first adjustment device for adjusting a seat height (para 0034; Figs 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nakamura in view of Anastasov such that wherein the support device comprises an operating chair having a seat and a first adjustment device for adjusting a seat height as taught by Anastasov for the advantages of adjustability during procedures (Nakamura para 0003).
RE Claim 20: Nakamura as modified discloses the holding system according to claim 19,
Anastasov further discloses wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one sensor element located in the first adjustment device, wherein the sensor element is configured to detect a seat height (para 0043-0044).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in combination, the details of
wherein the operating chair comprises a second adjustment device for adjusting a lateral seat inclination, at least one lateral support and at least one force sensor unit arranged in the lateral support for detection of a force acting laterally onto the lateral support (claims 9-10);
wherein the operating chair comprises an upper body retaining device having a traction means, wherein the traction means can be releasably attached to a back part of a harness that can be worn by the operator, wherein the upper body retaining device is arranged, so that the an upper body of the operator is retained in the holding mode in an inclination angle (claims 11-13), along with the remaining limitations of the claim.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various holding devices with control mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights