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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 02/03/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-22 have been canceled. Claims 23-42 have been added by way of amendment and are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 33, and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 23 recites “the method comprising…position a base…attach a radiation shield…adjust a position…”, which does not match grammatically, and should read ‘the method comprising…positioning a base…attaching a radiation shield…adjusting a position…’;
Claim 33 recites “the radiation shield configured to be manipulable…”, which is grammatically incomplete, and should read ‘the radiation shield is configured to be manipulable…’;
Claim 41 recites “the a radiation blocking material”, which should read ‘the radiation blocking material’.
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.
In particular, claims 28 and 39 explicitly recite means plus function language, and are thus interpreted as requiring the corresponding structure from the specification, namely, in [0018], [0036]-[0039], which recite a ball and socket coupling mechanism, a malleable stem and aperture coupling mechanism, a (hinged) clasp, or functional equivalents thereof.
In addition, 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: “a contacting portion configured to engage the table” in claims 23 and 33.
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.
In particular, the specification does not use the terminology of a contacting portion, nor explicitly disclose any element as ‘engaging’ or being ‘configured to engage’ a table. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure to describe only one element that is capable of ‘engaging a table’ under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), which is an adhesive layer on the object (in this case table) facing surface of the base. However, this results in clarity issues, because the specification does not disclose the adhesive portion as being at least partially made from a polymer, rather only the radiation shield is disclosed as such, as the base is disclosed as being formed of plastic with metallic wire. See below 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below for interpretation.
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 23-42 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.
Claim 23 recites “a contacting portion configured to engage the table, the contacting portion at least partially made from a polymer”, however, as discussed above, ‘a contacting portion’ invokes 112(f) interpretation. As noted above, the specification does not explicitly discuss ‘a contacting portion’ or any specific element ‘configured to engage the table’. The specification discloses adhesive being disposed on a surface of the base facing the object to be coupled to, and discloses the object to be coupled to as potentially being a table via such adhesion (and via sutures for fabric objects to be mounted), and accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the specification to reasonably disclose a contacting portion made of adhesive configured to engage (i.e., couple to) the table. However, ‘the contacting portion at least partially made from a polymer’ does not appear to be supported under this interpretation, as the only element disclosed as being formed of a polymer is the radiation blocking material, which is disclosed to be included in only the radiation shield. The base is disclosed as being formed of a plastic and metal wiring structure and/or having a foam structure therein, which would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as including polymers. The adhesive itself, however, is not disclosed as including a polymer in the specification. Accordingly, because the only element disclosed in the specification as being capable of engaging the table is the adhesive layer, the contacting portion must be interpreted as the adhesive layer to achieve ‘configured to engage the table’, which is not supported as being formed of a polymer. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a contacting portion configured to engage the table’.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the radiation shield is configured to provide radiation shielding equivalent to a lead layer.” which is indefinite because it does not provide a precise boundary on what is an is not required by the claim. In particular, ‘radiation shielding equivalent to a lead layer’ is indefinite because different layers of lead have different radiation shielding capabilities (e.g., layers of different purity, crystal lattice structure, thickness, morphology, etc.), and thus it is unclear what radiation capabilities the shield would be required to maintain. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Further examination of this limitation herein is forgone, as the degree of radiation shielding required would be speculative.
Claim 27 recites “further comprising maintaining the radiation shield in the substantially perpendicular orientation while attached to the base.” It is unclear whether this limitation further limits claim 24. Claim 23 requires attaching the radiation shield to the base, and claim 24 requires that the ‘adjusting a position’ step (of claim 23) place the shield into a substantially perpendicular orientation. Claim 27 depends on claim 24, and is directed toward a method. It appears that the method step of claim 27 is directed toward merely not taking further action, which is not a method step in any patentable sense. Maintaining the position in this context requires merely not taking any action, because Claims 23 and 24 do not require any removal step, and thus, this limitation does not appear to limit the positioning during any particular portion of the method (i.e., until removal). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Further examination of this limitation herein is forgone, as it does not appear to further limit the method.
Claim 32 recites “disposing of the radiation shield after use.”, however, claim 23, on which claim 32 depends, does not require ‘use’ of the radiation shield, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be ‘to shield radiation’. The claim does not require any actual blocking of radiation, merely the disposal and positioning of the device. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘disposing of the radiation shield.’.
Claim 33 is rejected for substantially similar reasons to claim 23 regarding the ‘contacting portion’ limitations and is interpreted similarly.
Claim 33 recites “the radiation shield [is] configured to be manipulable into a substantially perpendicular orientation such that a major surface of the radiation shield is perpendicular to a major surface of the contacting portion of the base and is maintained in the substantially perpendicular orientation while attached to the base.” The limitation “and is maintained in the substantially perpendicular orientation while attached to the base” recites a method step under the BRI, however, the claim is directed toward a device. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. Examiner notes that only the radiation shield is previously recited as capable of being manipulable into such a substantially perpendicular orientation, and thus, this limitation is clearly directed toward the radiation shield, although, the specific wording is somewhat ambiguous. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the radiation shield is configured to be manipulable into a substantially perpendicular orientation such that a major surface of the radiation shield is perpendicular to a major surface of the contacting portion of the base, and wherein the radiation shield is further configured to be maintained in the substantially perpendicular orientation while attached to the base.’ in order to rephrase as a capability of the device.
Claims 36 recites “wherein the radiation shield is configured to be sterile.”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. there is no sterilizing element, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the radiation shielding device in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Looking to the specification for instruction as to what is physically required of the shield to be ‘capable of being sterile’, the specification makes no mention of ‘configured to be sterile’, and only discusses sterilization once, stating “In additional embodiments, device or one of its components can be constructed so it can be sterilized for reuse.” Accordingly, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the radiation shield is configured to be sterilized for reuse.’, interpreted under the BRI as requiring ‘wherein the radiation shield is configured to be made of a material sufficient to be sterilized for reuse’, i.e., sterilization would not significantly degrade, as any such shield would be theoretically capable of being sterilized to a desired degree, given the proper sterilizing means.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,331,058 B2, and Claims 23-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,856819,058 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the instant application represent a mere rearranging and/or rewording of claim limitations found in the above cited claims of the two patents, respectively, and/or obvious modifications from the disclosures of the two patents (e.g., requiring action of attaching items previously disclosed as being attached). A detailed item to item matching is forgone for brevity (see 16/0096,036 for similar analysis). Examiner is available for an interview to clarify any questions regarding the item to item matching an encourages Applicant to contact the Examiner if issues arise.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arterson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090045358 A1).
Examiner notes that Arterson is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/21/2024.
Regarding claim 23, Arterson teaches a method of blocking radiation in a medical environment, the method comprising:
position a base (See Figs. 1-2, item 25 on a table (See Figs. 1-2, items 30) in the medical environment (See Figs. 1-2; Abstract; [0018]-[0022]), the base comprising:
a contacting portion configured to engage the table (See Fig. 1 portion of item 25 touching item 30; [0028]-[0030]), the contacting portion at least partially made from a polymer (See above interpretation), and
a protrusion extending from the contacting portion (See Figs. 1-2, items 28; [0027]-[0030]);
attach a radiation shield to the protrusion of the base (See Fig. 2, items 28, 29, 31; [0027]-[0030]), the radiation shield configured to at least partially block radiation transmission through the radiation shield and to be adjustable in position relative to the base, wherein the radiation shield is at least partially made from a radiation blocking material (See Figs. 1-2; [0027]-[0030]); and
adjust a position of the radiation shield relative to the base (See Figs. 1-2; [0027]-[0030]), the position of the radiation shield being determined at least in part at least by one of a position of a patient, a location of a radiation source or a position of a healthcare worker in the medical environment (See Figs. 1-2; [0027]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 24, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 23.
Arterson further teaches wherein adjusting a position of the radiation shield relative to the base comprises manipulating at least a portion of the radiation shield into a substantially perpendicular orientation such that a major surface of the radiation shield is perpendicular to a major surface of the contacting portion of the base (See Fig. 1, wherein at least a portion of the radiation shield is in a position substantially perpendicular to contacting portion)
Regarding claim 25, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 24.
Arterson further taches wherein adjusting a position of the radiation shield relative to the base further comprises manipulating at least a portion of the radiation shield to extend between a patient and a radiation source ([0027]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 25.
Arterson further teaches wherein the radiation shield is configured to provide radiation shielding equivalent to a lead layer ([0028]).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 24.
Arterson further teaches further comprising maintaining the radiation shield in the substantially perpendicular orientation while attached to the base ([0027]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 23.
Arterson further teaches wherein attaching the radiation shield to the protrusion of the base comprises using a means for attachment to releasably couple the radiation shield to the protrusion of the base (See Fig. 2, items 28, 29, 31; [0027]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 29, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 23.
Arterson further teaches further comprising:
securing the base to the table in the medical environment before attaching the radiation shield to the protrusion of the base ([0030]).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 29.
Arterson further teaches wherein the protrusion of the base is configured to be deformable prior to attaching the radiation shield to the protrusion (Examiner notes that ‘configured to be deformable’ does not particularly limit ‘deformable’, and is thus interpreted as ‘capable of being deformed’, and notes that given sufficient force, the hooks disclosed would be understood to be deformable).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 23.
Arterson further teaches wherein at least a portion of the protrusion extends substantially normal to a major surface of the contacting portion (See Fig. 1, item 28, substantially normal to contacting portion of 25).
Claims 33-36 and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130320246 A1).
Examiner notes that Beck is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/21/2024.
Regarding claim 33, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches a medical radiation shielding device for blocking radiation in a medical environment (Abstract), the device comprising:
a radiation shield configured to at least partially block radiation transmission through the radiation shield, the radiation shield at least partially made from a radiation blocking material (See Figs. 1-2, item 7; [0012]); and
a base at least partially made from a polymer (See Figs. 1-2, 5-6, item 5; [0012]), the base comprising:
a contacting portion configured to engage a table (See Figs. 1, item 5 on table 1), the contacting portion at least partially made from a polymer (See above interpretation; [0012]), and
a protrusion extending substantially away from the contacting portion, the protrusion configured to be deformable (See Figs. 1-2, 4-6, items 6, 15, 17, 18; [0012]-[0014]);
wherein the radiation shield is configured to be coupled to the base by the protrusion (See Figs. 1, item 7 coupled to item 5 via items 6; [0012]-[0014]), the radiation shield configured to be manipulable into a substantially perpendicular orientation such that a major surface of the radiation shield is perpendicular to a major surface of the contacting portion of the base and is maintained in the substantially perpendicular orientation while attached to the base (See Figs. 1, item 7 perpendicular to contacting portion of item 5; [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches wherein the protrusion is configured to maintain the radiation shield in the substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the contacting portion of the base (See Figs. 1, item 6 maintaining item 7 perpendicular to contacting portion of item 5; [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 34.
Beck further teaches wherein in the substantially perpendicular orientation, the major surface of the radiation shield is substantially perpendicular to a major surface of the table (See Figs. 1-2, items 1 and 7; [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches wherein the radiation shield is configured to be sterile (Title; [0012]).
Regarding claim 38, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches wherein the base is at least partially made from a radiation-blocking material and the base is configured to at least partially block radiation transmission through the base ([0012]-[0014]; Examiner notes that disclosed carbon fiber or other rigid plastic, both of which are at least partially radiation blocking to some forms of radiation).
Regarding claim 39, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches the base further comprising means for securing the radiation shield to the protrusion of the base (See Figs. 1-2, 4-6; [0012]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 40, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches wherein the radiation shield at least partially comprises a polymer ([0012]).
Regarding claim 41, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches wherein the a radiation blocking material comprises lead ([0003]; [0012]).
Regarding claim 42, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck further teaches wherein the radiation shield is configured to provide radiation shielding equivalent to a lead layer (See above interpretation; Examiner notes that some thickness of lead layer under some particular conditions would have the same radiation shielding as the shield disclosed in [0012]).
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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arterson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090045358 A1), in view of previously presented OFFICIAL NOTICE, or in the alternative, in view of Orrison (USPN US 4938233 A).
Examiner notes that Orrison is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/21/2024.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Arterson teaches the method of claim 23.
Arterson further teaches further comprising:
separating the radiation shield from the base; and
disposing of the radiation shield [cover] after use (See above interpretation; [0031]-[0033]).
Arterson does not explicitly teach disposing of the radiation shield itself, however, Arterson achieve the same sanitizing effect by disposing of a cover around the shield.
However, as discussed in the Non-Final Office Action dated 05/31/2027 of Application No. 15/022,104 (of which the instant application is a continuation of), disposing of medical equipment that has been contaminated is well known within the art, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arterson to dispose of the entire shield assembly. One would have been motivated to do so if and when the shield assembly was contaminated in a medical environment. See OFFICIAL NOTICE taken therein.
For completeness:
Orrison teaches the use of a disposable radiation shield (Col. 3, lines 44-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Arterson to include disposing the radiation itself, as taught by Orrison.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Orrison teaches such a disposable shield assembly to achieve the same goal as the removable sleeve disposal of Arterson, and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily adapt such a disposable shield to Arterson with a reasonable expectation of success, and achieving predictable results, via a disclosed prior art alternative for a similar goal.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20130320246 A1), in view of previously presented OFFICIAL NOTICE, or in the alternative, in view of Rees (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20100107320 A1).
Examiner notes that Rees is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/21/2024.
Regarding claim 37, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Beck teaches the medical radiation shielding device of claim 33.
Beck does not explicitly teach wherein the base further comprises a malleable wire-type structure.
Rees teaches wherein the base further comprises a malleable wire-type structure ([0058]-[0059]; [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beck to include wherein the base further comprises a malleable wire-type structure, as taught by Rees.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the position of the shield positioning, as disclosed in the cited portions of Rees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights