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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 21—40 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on has been acknowledged by the Office 04/29/2025.
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.
Claim 21, 31 & 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation:
Present App. No. 19/038928
U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2
Comment
Claim 21 recites:
a first end, an opposite second end, at least one support portion
a cross beam, a transom support portion, a transom
wherein the one of the emitter and the receiver is moveable along the cross beam between a first position at or adjacent the first end of the surgical frame
and the other of the emitter and the receiver is moveable along the transom between a first position at or adjacent the first end of the surgical frame and a second position at or adjacent the second end of the surgical frame
Claim 1 recites:
a first support portion, a second support portion,
a translating beam, a first transom support post, a second transom support post
[the translating beam] being moveably attached at a first end thereof relative to the first support portion and moveably attached at a second end thereof relative to the second support portion, the first transom support post being attached to the first support portion, the second transom support post being attached to the second support portion, the transom extending between the first transom support post and the second transom support post,
a first bar support portion attached to the first support portion of the surgical frame, a second bar support portion
wherein the translating beam and the one of the emitter and the receiver attached thereto are moveable between a first position at or adjacent the first lateral side of the surgical frame
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim.
The instant claim recites:
at least one support portion instead of a first and a second support portion
a cross beam instead of a translating beam
a transom support portion instead of a first and a second transom support post.
The instant claims drop the limitations of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. (see column 2)
Claim 31 recites:
a first end, an opposite second end, at least one support portion,
a cross beam, a transom support portion
wherein the one of the emitter and the receiver is moveable along the cross beam between a first position at or adjacent the first end of the surgical frame
and the other of the emitter and the receiver is moveable along the transom between a first position at or adjacent the first end of the surgical frame and a second position at or adjacent the second end of the surgical frame
Claim 1 recites:
a first support portion, a second support portion,
a translating beam, a first transom support post, a second transom support post
[the translating beam] being moveably attached at a first end thereof relative to the first support portion and moveably attached at a second end thereof relative to the second support portion, the first transom support post being attached to the first support portion, the second transom support post being attached to the second support portion, the transom extending between the first transom support post and the second transom support post,
a first bar support portion attached to the first support portion of the surgical frame, a second bar support portion
wherein the translating beam and the one of the emitter and the receiver attached thereto are moveable between a first position at or adjacent the first lateral side of the surgical frame
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim.
The instant claim recites:
at least one support portion instead of a first and a second support portion
a cross beam instead of a translating beam
a transom support portion instead of a first and a second transom support post.
The instant claims drop the limitations of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. (see column 2)
Claim 37 recites:
a first end, an opposite second end
a cross beam, a transom support portion
wherein the one of the emitter and the receiver is moveable along the cross beam between a first position at or adjacent the first end of the surgical frame and a second position at or adjacent the second end of the surgical frame
and the other of the emitter and the receiver is attached to the transom between; and wherein the rotatable patient-supporting beam is rotatable independently of the first radiation shield and the second radiation shield of the radiation- mitigation system
Claim 1 recites:
a first support portion, a second support portion,
a translating beam, a first transom support post, a second transom support post
[the translating beam] being moveably attached at a first end thereof relative to the first support portion and moveably attached at a second end thereof relative to the second support portion, the first transom support post being attached to the first support portion, the second transom support post being attached to the second support portion, the transom extending between the first transom support post and the second transom support post,
a first bar support portion attached to the first support portion of the surgical frame, a second bar support portion
wherein the translating beam and the one of the emitter and the receiver attached thereto are moveable between a first position at or adjacent the first lateral side of the surgical frame
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim.
The instant claim recites:
a cross beam instead of a translating beam
a transom support portion instead of a first and a second transom support post.
The instant claims drop the limitations of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. (see column 2)
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “first bar support portion” | Application: “first bar support” ).
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “and the second radiation shield” ).
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 & 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “a third bar support portion, a forth bar support portion” | Application “at least one support portion” ).
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “a third bar support portion, a forth bar support portion” | Application “a first portion of the second bar, a second portion of the second bar” ).
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 & 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “translating beam” | Application “cross beam”).
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 & 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “second bar support portion, third bar support portion, a fourth bar support portion” | Application “a second bar support, a second bar portion”).
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “first bar support portion, ” | Application “first bar support”).
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “third bar support portion, fourth bar support portion” | Application “second bar portion, the second end of the second bar portion”).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 & 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “translating beam” | Application “cross beam”).
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “first bar support portion” | Application “first bar support, a second portion of the first bar support”).
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference/instant case are fully encompassed by the patented claim. The instant claim drops/adds the limitation: (Patented Case: “the third bar support portion, the fourth bar support portion” | Application “first portion of the second bar support”).
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21—40 are rejected under a Double Patenting rejection as noted above, but would be allowable upon the filing of a proper Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the Double Patenting rejections over U.S. Patent No. 12,207,957 B2. Regarding specific reasons for allowance of the independent claims in view of prior art, please review the Notice of Allowance mailed with Application 19/038,928 (issued as U.S. Patent 12,207,957 B2) mailed on 09/05/2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 04/28/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights