NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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:
“an irradiation device” in claims 1, 10 and 13 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder "means" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 11 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: no structure other than “an irradiation device” is disclosed in the originally filed Specification to perform the function.
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.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected because- Solid black shading areas in Fig. 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color (see MPEP 1.84(m)). Further, Fig. 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 appeared to be blurred. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning (See MPEP 1.84 (l)).
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 Objections
Claims 2-6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3, to be consistent with the claim language, please replace “a bed” with -- the bed -- as the limitation is previously recited in claim 1 from where the claim depends.
In claims 3-6, line 1, to be consistent with the claim language, please replace “measuring device” with -- pressure measuring device --.
In claim 10, the recited limitation “receive a communication from a pressure measuring device” is not fully clear. What is “a communication” here? Is this a pressure measurement data?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the bed" which has not been previously defined. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-12 are rejected as they depend from claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is not further limiting claim 1 since the limitation is already in claim 1 as the control device (of claim 1) is configured to: …. control the irradiation device to stop an operation of the irradiation device based on the pressure measurement exceeding a preset level. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 8-9 are rejected as the claim depends from claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-6 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objections.
Claims 7-9 and 10-12 would be allowable if amended to overcome the objection(s) and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to Claim 1, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a system comprising, in combination with the other recited elements, an irradiation device configured to press on a body of a user lying on the bed and to irradiate energy towards the user; and a control device configured to control the irradiation device, wherein the control device is configured to: obtain a pressure measurement from the pressure measuring device; and control the irradiation device to stop an operation of the irradiation device based on the pressure measurement exceeding a preset level.
With regard to Claim 13, the prior arts of the record do not teach or fairly suggest a method for controlling an irradiation device, comprising, in combination with the other recited steps, controlling, by the processor, the irradiation device to stop an operation of the irradiation device based on the pressure of the bed exceeding the preset level, wherein the operation of the irradiation device includes applying pressure to a body of a user lying on the bed and irradiating the body of the user with energy.
Claims 14-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependence from Claim 13.
The most pertinent prior art of record is to Cho et al. (US 10,799,719 B2). Cho teaches a thermoplastic mask monitoring system using a pressure sensor [Abstract]. Specifically, a thermoplastic mask apparatus configured for controlled application of radiation therapy to a patient, the thermoplastic mask comprising: a thermoplastic mask having a shape determined according to a shape of a first region which is at least a part of the patient's body, wherein the mask is formed for close contact with the first region, the mask being configured to fix the first region of the patient's body to receive radiation from a radiation source; and a pressure sensor provided between the mask and the first region to sense both static and dynamic pressures between the mask and the first region, wherein the pressure sensor comprises a deformable diaphragm, frame, beam, or chip portion, and the pressure sensor is configured to indicate a differential pressure when the diaphragm, frame, beam or chip portion is deformed; a controller that stops output of radiation from the radiation source if the sensed pressures indicate that the first region is not fixed through the mask (Claim 1).
Another pertinent prior art of record is to Cho et al. (US 2023/0346220 A1). Cho teaches a contactless vital signs monitoring system is installed on a mattress and includes a contactless vital signs signal acquisition and processing system. The system includes a BCG signal acquisition module, a human body pressure acquisition module and a control circuit. A piezoelectric ceramic array is arranged on the mattress to serve as the BCG signal acquisition module, a resistance-type pressure belt is arranged on the mattress to serve as the human body pressure acquisition module, and in combination with an intelligent dynamic wave peak tracing algorithm, heart rate data, respiration data, body movement data, on-bed/off-bed condition and abnormal sound data of a user in a sleep process can be extracted, and a sleep condition of the user can be comprehensively analyzed [Abstract].
The invention of abovementioned arts, even if modified, does not alone or in combination with the other arts of record, teach or fairly suggest the crux of the claimed features mentioned above, and also in combination with all other elements in the independent claims distinguish the present invention(s) from the prior arts.
For these reasons, Claims 1 and 13-20 of the claimed invention distinguish themselves from the prior arts on record and therefore are in a condition for allowance.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights