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 .
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.
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 detector mounting unit…” in claim 1.
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 1 recites the preamble phrase, “a side-lying bed for x-ray imaging in which a patient may lie on his/her side”. The body of the claim further recites “a frame that supports a patient in a side-lying posture”. The instant phrases amount to intended use of the claimed apparatus, and do not impart any specific structure to the claim. Accordingly, the claim will be interpreted with said scope.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the phrase “a detector mounting unit formed on one side of the frame…”. The instant phrase invokes 112(f), as set forth above under Claim Interpretation. MPEP 2181(III) explains that limitations that invoke 112(f), the supporting disclosure must clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. While the disclosure provides numerous examples of what the “detector mounting unit” could be (e.g. FIG. 2-8), it does not clearly link or associate the disclosed structure to the claimed function and thus fails to establish the metes and bounds of the invention. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a mattress with cushions positioned on the upper surface of the frame”. The is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “wherein the detector mounted on the detector mounting unit…”. Claim 2 further recites “the imaging area of the detector”. Parent claim 1 does not explicitly require “the detector” and thus lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Parent claim 1 further lack antecedent basis for the phrase “the imaging area of the detector”. Lastly, claim 2
attempts to define properties of the detector mounting unit based on how a hypothetical detector mounts to the mounting unit. However, not all detectors are created equal, and a given detector may mount differently based on the application at hand. Ex Parte Miyazaki explains that a claim is indefinite under 112(b) if the claim is amenable to two or more plausible constructions, which applies in the current context of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “the other side of the frame”. The instant phrase lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “the upper portion of the frame or folded to the lower portion of the frame”. The instant phrase lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “wherein the detector mounting units are formed on both sides of the frame respectively”. The instant phrase lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1, 2, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 20200134386 A).
Regarding claim 1, KIM discloses a side-lying bed for x-ray imaging in which a patient may lie on his/her side, comprising:
a frame that supports a patient in a side-lying posture (bed support means 200 includes horizontal support 220, upper support 240 and lower support 260 and base plate 280; FIG 1);
a mattress with cushions positioned on the upper surface of the frame (bed 100); and
a detector mounting unit formed on one side of the frame in a longitudinal direction of the frame such that a detector for X-ray imaging may be mount on the detector mounting unit (film cradle 120 supporting detector 30; [0039, 0048, 0056, 0057, 0121]).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 1 of KIM illustrates a scoliosis patient bed for side-lying imaging.
Regarding claim 2, KIM discloses wherein the detector mounted on the detector mounting unit and positioned upright, and a lower boundary point of the imaging area of the detector is located below the upper surface of the mattress (FIG 1).
Regarding claim 4, KIM discloses wherein the detector mounting unit is an elongated groove formed in a longitudinal direction of the frame (FIG 1, 3b).
Regarding claim 8, KIM discloses wherein the mattress is made of a synthetic resin capable of transmitting X-rays (fabric, Styrofoam, sponges, etc.; [0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 3, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 20200134386 A) in view of NAKADA (JP 2005144070 A).
Regarding claim 3, KIM does not specify the frame comprising a handrail. In the same field of endeavor, NAKADA discloses a patient bed comprising a handrail formed on a side of the frame extending to an upper portion of the frame 62/79 or folded to the lower portion of the frame, and when the handrail 74 is folded, the handrail is located below the top surface of the mattress 70 ([0054, 0067]). Considering the teachings of NAKADA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of KIM.
Regarding claim 7, KIM does not specify wherein legs of the frame are equipped with wheels and are movable. In the same field of endeavor, NAKADA discloses a patient bed comprising a frame with legs equipped with wheels for movability, the benefit providing movability (FIG 1; casters C; [0022]). Considering the teachings of NAKADA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of KIM.
Regarding claim 9, KIM does not disclose wherein the detector mounting units are formed on both sides of the frame respectively, and handrails are mounted on the outer sides of the detector mounting units on both sides respectively, and the handrails are extended to the upper portion of the frame or folded to the lower portion of the frame, and when the handrails are folded, the handrails are positioned below the upper surface of the mattress, with the benefit of improved patient access to the bed ([0054, 0067]). Considering the teachings of NAKADA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of KIM.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 20200134386 A) in view of LEE et al. (KR 20140070749 A).
Regarding claim 5, KIM does not disclose wherein the detector mounting unit is a rail fixed in a longitudinal direction of the frame, and the detector is inserted and mounted in a gap between the rail and a side surface of the mattress. In the same field of endeavor, a patient table (100) comprising a a cassette adjustment part (400) provided on a side surface of the table body in which a connecting frame (44) has a guide groove (442), and a cassette holder (450) is slidable along the connecting frame (FIG 1-3; [0059-0059]), with the benefit of providing a support for imaging a patient without moving them from the bed. In light of the teachings of LEE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine with the teachings of KIM.
Regarding claim 6, KIM discloses wherein the detector mounting unit is fixed to the frame with two rails parallel to each other, and the detector is mounted by being inserted into the gap formed between the two rails (FIG 2-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)270-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F // 7-3P EST.
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, UZMA ALAM can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
CASEY BRYANT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/CASEY BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights