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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the boxes shown in the drawings in Figure 2 are unlabeled rectangular box(es), and should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
1) a detection unit in claim 23.
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 23-44 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.
1) Regarding claims 24 and 25, the phrase "a period of time of about 0.5 to about 10 seconds" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term “about” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). A specifically defined period of time should be recited, so as to make the subject matter in the claim clear and concise.
2) Regarding the following claims
-- Claim 23 line 8
-- Claim 24 line 2
-- Claim 25 line 3
-- Claim 30 line 4
-- Claim 31 lines 2,3,5,7,8
-- Claim 32 lines 2,3
-- Claim 33 line 4
-- Claim 34 line 1,4
-- Claim 35 line 1,4
-- Claim 37 line 2
-- Claim 39 line 2
-- Claim 40 line 2
-- Claim 41 line 4
-- Claim 42 line 5,6
-- Claim 44 line 8
The phrases "possible collision” or “possibly collides”(claim 31, line 7) or “approximately constant”(claim 31 line 8) or “possible movements”(claim 33 line 4) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations are actually are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Possible collision, or possibly collides or possible movement is indefinite or approximately, because there is either a collision or not. A movement, or not. Constant or not. Therefore, the phrases should definitively state that a collision or movement or constant force is detected or determined.
2) Claim 35 is incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements(see: MPEP 2172.01). Claim 35 recites the element “fourth threshold”, but omits the elements: second and third thresholds. Claim 35 is dependent on claim 33, which is dependent on claim 23. There is no mention of second or third thresholds, until claims 24 and 25, respectively.
ART REJECTION:
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.
Claim(s) 23,30-40, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al(USPGPUB 2007/0200396 A1).
-- In considering claim 23, the claimed subject matter that is met by Baumann et al(Baumann) includes::
1) the patient bearing device which is capable of use as a part of an operating table is met by the table plate(2) of the patient support table(1)(see: Baumann, secs[0030-0032]);
2) a load sensor arrangement having at least one load sensor configured to issue sensor values is met by one or more expansion measurement strips or strain gauges that detect the force exerted directly on the table place(see: Baumann, sec[0033]);
3) a load determination unit configured to determine a load with the sensor values, the load comprising a load acting on the load sensor arrangement or a load acting on the patient bearing device is met by the force sensor(7), which continuously determines the actual Force factor outputs , based on information received from the gauges(see: Baumann, secs[0033-0034]);
4) a detection unit configured to detect a possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground or said part of the operating table when the load determined by the load determination unit falls below a specified first threshold while the patient bearing device or at least one segment of the patient bearing devices moves downward is met by the host module(8), of the control facility(4), which stores at least one reference force value, and defines a maximum force applied to the table, and wherein the hose module determines collision information based on received signals from sensors(7)(see: Baumann, sec[0034]), wherein the reference force may not be exceeded when the plate is being moved(see: sec[0035]).
Although Baumann does not specifically disclose the load determined, falling below a specified first threshold, Baumann teaches that the control facility(4) detects any potential collisions based on movement of the table (2)(see: Baumann, sec[0047]). As well, the collision determination is based on virtual 3D movement models, and collision sensors detecting an imminent collision. The determination is made based on corresponding values of the required speed n.sub.req and of the limit motor torque m.sub.limit, as to avoid collision. Therefore, it would have been obvious that any threshold would have been determined by the facility(4), including a load falling below a specified first threshold.
-- With regards to claim 30,
1) the load determination unit is additionally configured to determine a centre of the load with the sensor values would have been met by the multi-axis sensor of up to 6-axis force sensor, which thereby would have been required to determine the force applied to multiple monitored axis(see: Baumann, secs[0018]), which would have required a center of the load to be determined;
2) the detection unit, as an additional condition for possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground, or said part of the operating table, is configured to determine whether the load centre determined by the load determination unit changes abruptly during the downwards movement of the patient bearing device or of the at least one segment of the patient bearing device is met by the sensors determining force, and rotational or tilting torque that is being exerted on the table place, relevant to the axis of rotation or pivot axis, wherein a reference torque is defined in advances as a reference or limit value that is stored in the control facility(4), such that when a sensor measurement indicates a force being exerted on the table plat or is operating in the axis of rotation, a motor immediately provides assistance such that the excessive actual torque is compensated(see: Baumann, sec[0020]).
-- With regards to claim 31,
1) the detection unit is configured to determine a force caused by a possible collision and acting on the patient bearing device or a site where the patient bearing device possibly collides with said object, said ground, or said part of the operating table and the detection unit, as an additional condition for a possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground, or said part of the operating table, is configured to determine whether the force caused by the possible collision increases during the possible collision or the collision site is approximately constant is met by the control facility(4) of Baumann, being able to detect a collision between the table plate(2) and another object, so as to control at least one motor as a function of the result of the collision determination, such that the motorized force assistance is used for movement assistance and collision avoidance purposes(see: Baumann, sec[0023]), wherein when a collision is detected, based on a force pushing harder on the table place, that exceeds a reference value force(see: Baumann, sec[0024]). This would have constituted the claimed force causing the possible collision increasing, since it would have been a force that exceeded the reference force value.
-- With regards to claim 32,
1) the detection unit is configured to determine the force caused by the possible collision or the collision site with a change, which occurred during the possible collision, of the load determined by the load determination unit or of the load centre determined by the load determination unit or of the sensor values issued by at least a part of the load sensors is met by the sensor being able to determine a torque for table plates thereby indicating a collision(see: Baumann, sec[0020]).
-- With regards to claim 33,
1) the load sensor arrangement has a plurality of load sensors configured to issue the sensor values is met by one or more expansion measurement strips or strain gauges that detect the force exerted directly on the table place(see: Baumann, sec[0033]);
2) a respective selection of the load sensors is assigned to at least a part of the possible movements of the patient bearing device or of the at least one segment of the patient bearing device about different axes or by a lifting column is met by the sensors being embodied to determine rotational or tilting torque exerted on the table plate in the relevant axis of rotation or pivot(see: Baumann, sec[0020]);
3) during a movement of the patient bearing device or of the at least one segment of the patient bearing device, the detection unit is configured to analyse the forces acting on the load sensors assigned to said movement is met by the control facility being able to detect a collision by analyzing the forces from the sensor(7)(see: Baumann, sec[0034]).
-- With regards to claim 34,
1) as an additional condition for a possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground, or said part of the operating table, the detection unit is configured to determine whether the analyzed forces fall below a specified force threshold during a possible collision is met by the control facility(4) determining whether forces acting on the table fall in relation to the reference force value(F.sub.ref) which is stored in the host module(8), the reference force value defining the maximum force applied to the table(see: Baumann, sec[0034-0036]).
-- With regards to claim 35, Baumann does not teach:
1) as an additional condition for a possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground, or said part of the operating table, the detection unit is configured to determine whether a derivation of the analyzed forces falls below a fourth threshold during a possible collision.
Although Baumann does not specifically teach a fourth threshold, Baumann does teach that a threshold is reached which would require compensation by the motor to counteract the forces placed on the table(see: Baumann, sec[0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a fourth threshold, or any number of thresholds deemed necessary to allow the table to operate in a suitable manner.
-- With regards to claim 36, Baumann does not specifically disclose:
1) the load sensor arrangement comprises a plurality of load sensors configured to issue the sensor values, and the load sensors have at least one of the following features:
i) the load sensors have a longitudinal shape is met by the sensors(7) may be 6-axis sensors in the form of one or more expansion measurement strips, which would have constituted longitudinal shape, which is generally longer in length than in width.
-- With regards to claim 37,
1) the detection unit, after the detection of a possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground, or said part of the operating table, is configured to create a collision is met, since the control facility(4) causes the forces of the motor would be able to cause the table to move in a direction that would possibly cause a collision with an object that would have been in the pathway of the table while it is being moved by the motor.
-- With regards to claim 38,
1) the patient bearing device is part of an operating table and the operating table further comprises a base and a column and wherein the load sensor arrangement is arranged in the column is met by the table(2) being a patient support table, and including a frame(6) and supported by pedestal(3). Although the sensors(7) are shown being attached to frame(6), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place the sensors in the pedestal, as desired, since this would have constituted an matter of obvious design choice, since placement of the sensors is not dependent on any particular position, as long as it is able to register movement of the table(2), while still being in communication with the control facility(4).
-- With regards to claim 39,
1) the detection unit is configured to detect a possible collision when the load determined by the load determination unit decreases by at least one collision threshold during a downwards movement of the patient bearing device or of the at least one segment of the patient bearing device is met by the control facility accounting for any collision between the table plate(2) and other objects, based on continuously detecting the position of the table derived from corresponding drive parameters, such that a controller(9) is notified when the table plate(2) gets impermissibly close to another object, and based on the actual force F.sub.act detected(see: Baumann, sec0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious that any time a threshold would have been reached, the control facility would have detected a possible collision and counteracted it by controlling the controller(9).
-- With regards to claim 40,
1) the detection unit is configured to detect a possible collision when the load determined by the load determination unit decreases by at least one collision threshold during a downwards movement of the patient bearing device or of the at least one segment of the patient bearing device is met by the controller determining the corresponding values of the required speed n.sub.req(see: Baumann, sec[0047]);
2) wherein the system sets the collision threshold based on one or more of the following variables: a position of the patient bearing device, an angle of the patient bearing device, a joint angle of a joint within the patient bearing device, a displacement or trend or tilt position of the patient bearing device, and a current type of movement of the patient bearing device is met by the control facility(4) accounting for any collision between the table plat(2) and other objects, by determining the position of the table in relation to the other object(see: Baumann, sec[0047]).
-- Claim 44 recites a method that substantially corresponds to the subject matter of claim 23, and therefore is met for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-29, and 41-43 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In related art, GO(USPGPUB 2022/0119023 A1) teaches a patient bearing device which is capable of use as a part of an operating table in the form of loading table(13) of the moving cart(1)(see: sec[0050]), wherein an a load sensor arrangement having at least one load sensor configured to issue sensor values taught by a load cell attached to the upper surface of the loading table(13) and configure to detect the weight of the loaded cargo(see: GO, sec[0082, last sentence]), a load determination unit configured to determine a load with the sensor values, the load comprising a load acting on the load sensor arrangement or a load acting on the patient bearing device is taught by a control module(60), which receives detection signals from falling object sensor(57), along with obstacle sensor(51) and camera sensor(53)(see: GO, sec[0083]), and a detection unit configured to detect a possible collision of the patient bearing device with said object, said ground or said part of the operating table when the load determined by the load determination unit falls below a specified first threshold while the patient bearing device or at least one segment of the patient bearing devices moves downward is taught by a falling object determination unit(63), which receives signals indicating that there is a falling object detecting whether the amount of raising and lowering displacement of the raising and lowering unit(40) occurs or whether the weight of the cargo on the loading table(13) changes by receiving the detection information from the falling object sensor(57 in real time. The determination is based on sensing loaded cargo falls based on the raising and lowering displacement occurring depending on a change in the weight of the cargo, or the weight of the cargo loaded on the loading table changing(see: GO, sec[0085]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is (571)272-2959. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/DARYL C POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686