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.
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.
-Claim 20 recites “a securing means for releasably securing” sufficient structure is found in the specification in paragraphs 35-37.
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.
Claim 20 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 20 recites the terms “and/or” and “or each”, these terms render the claim indefinite because it is not possible to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. The inclusion of both “and/or” make the claim unclear if the limitation is required.
Claim 20 recites “a radiolucent attachment according to claim 1”, it is not clear if this radiolucent attachment is the same or different than the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. It appears the claim should read “the radiolucent attachment according to claim 1”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kantrowitz (US 6199233 B1; March 13, 2001).
Regarding claim 1, Kantrowitz teaches a radiolucent attachment (Figure 3 Element 28) for a patient support apparatus (Seen in Figure 1), the attachment comprising:
a supporting surface (Figure 8 Element 128a) for supporting a portion of a patient
supporting surface (Figure 8 Element 128A) having a recess (Seen in Figure 8 - opening) configured to removably receive one of a plurality of radiolucent inserts (Figure 8 Element 132b -radiolucent horseshow.)
and a radiolucent coupling portion (Figure 3 base area Element 36 toward edge Element 40), configured to cooperate with a corresponding radiolucent coupling portion of a patient support apparatus or a patient support apparatus section (Figure 1 Element 40 – attachment base), for coupling the attachment to the patient support apparatus (Figure 3 Element 22- table).
Regarding claim 2, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches further comprising a radiolucent insert coupling portion (Figure 3 Element 28; he support plate 28 may be made of other radiolucent materials) for engaging a corresponding radiolucent coupling portion of one of the plurality of radiolucent inserts (Figure 3 Element 32) , for coupling the insert to the attachment (Abstract; Seen in Figure 1), optionally wherein the insert coupling portion comprises a locking mechanism for securing the insert in the recess (Not required in view of the optionally statement).
Regarding claim 3, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the insert coupling portion is configured to slidably receive the one of the plurality of radiolucent inserts (Seen in Figure 7 Element 122- -radiotranslucent and slidably connected).
Regarding claim 4, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 3. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the insert coupling portion comprises at least one of: a recess configured to be engaged by a corresponding projecting element of the insert ; and/or a projecting element (Figure 8 Element 132a) configured to engage a corresponding recess of the insert (Figure 8 Element 132).
Regarding claim 5, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the attachment is formed of a radiolucent material which is non-metallic, the radiolucent material being one of: a polymer; wood, in particular plywood; a laminated material (, such as phenolic paper; and a fibre reinforced composite, optionally a carbon fibre reinforced material and/or a fibre reinforced polymer, optionally a carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic material (Column 5 Lines 20-50 - The radiolucent material is wood).
Regarding claim 6, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the radiolucent coupling portion (Figure 8 Element 128a) comprises at least one radiolucent projection (Lower half of 128a; Column 6 Lines 25-47) configured to be inserted (Figure 8 Element129) into a corresponding radiolucent receiving portion of the patient support apparatus or the patient support apparatus section (Figure 3 Element 22; Column 6 Lines 25-47).
Regarding claim 7, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 6. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the or each radiolucent projection is tapered (Figure 3 Element 28 is tapered; Column 6 Lines 25-47) and/or wherein the or each radiolucent projection has a rectangular, optionally square, cross-section.
Regarding claim 8, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 6. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the or each radiolucent projection comprises a securing means for releasably securing the respective projection in the corresponding receiving portion (Column 6 Lines 25-47 ), optionally wherein the securing means is formed of a different material than the projection, further optionally wherein the securing means is formed of a polymer, in particular an injection moulded polymer, and a remainder of the projection is formed of a carbon fibre reinforced polymer (not required by the optionally step).
Regarding claim 9, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 8. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the securing means comprise a resilient member (Column 6 Lines 25-47; Figure 3 Element 44).
Regarding claim 10, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 9. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the resilient member: is configured so that moving the projection into the corresponding receiving portion deflects the resilient member into a deflected position; and/or comprises a locking member configured to engage with a corresponding locking portion of the receiving portion (Column 7 Lines 9-32; Figure 3 Element 46), optionally wherein the locking member comprises a locking protrusion.
12. The radiolucent attachment of claim 1, comprising at least one groove (Figure 1 Element 126) configured to receive a, optionally radiolucent, carriage (Figure 1 Element 114) of a peripheral device (Figure 1 Element 110) for slidably coupling the peripheral device to the radiolucent attachment (Seen in Figure 1; Column 7 Lines 32-65), optionally the peripheral device comprising at least one of: a diagnostic device, such as an angiography device; a display device, such as a vital sign display; and a head support, configured to support at least a head of a patient (Not required by the optionally statement).
Regarding claim 13, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein: a, or the, insert coupling portion is provided adjacent the recess (seen in Figure 8); and/or the supporting surface comprises a protruding support section configured to form a continuous surface when inserted into a corresponding cutout section of a supporting surface of the patient support apparatus or the patient support apparatus section (Not required by the or statement).
Regarding claim 14, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches further comprising a radiolucent insert (Figure 8 Element 132) configured to be received by the radiolucent attachment (Figure 8 Element 128a; Column 8 Line66-Column 9 Line 14), optionally the radiolucent insert comprising the corresponding coupling portion for engaging the insert coupling portion of the attachment (not required by the optionally statement).
Regarding claim 15, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 14. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the radiolucent insert is a support plate (Figure 2 Element 32; Column 5 Lines 20-50), configured to combine with the supporting surface to form a continuous supporting surface (Seen in Figure 2- support surface is continuous).
Regarding claim 16, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 14. Kantrowitz further teaches wherein the radiolucent insert is a head rest (Figure 3 Element 32), comprising a band for bridging the open end of the recess (Seen in Figure 3; Column 5 Lines 20-50), optionally the head rest comprises a flat portion and a curved portion, the curved portion forming a channel for receiving a head of the patient (not required by the optionally statement).
Regarding claim 18, Kantrowitz teaches a patient support apparatus comprising: a radiolucent attachment according to claim 1 (Seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 18. Kantrowitz further teaches further comprising a radiolucent support section (Figure 1 Element 40) to which the radiolucent attachment (Figure 3 Element 28) is coupled, optionally wherein the radiolucent support section is a radiolucent pelvic section or a radiolucent torso section, further optionally wherein the radiolucent pelvic section or the radiolucent torso section comprises a supporting surface having the corresponding cutout section (not required by the optionally statement).
Regarding claim 20, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches radiolucent coupling portion for a radiolucent attachment according to claim 1, the radiolucent coupling portion comprising: at least one radiolucent projection (Figure 3 Lower half of 128a; Column 6 Lines 25-47) configured to be inserted into a corresponding radiolucent receiving portion (Figure 3 Element 40 -receives the radiolucent projection), for coupling components comprising the projection and the corresponding receiving portion, wherein: the, or each, projection is tapered , and the, or each, corresponding receiving portion is tapered (Figure 3 Element 22; Column 6 Lines 25-47 - tapered); and/or the, or each, radiolucent projection, and the, or each, corresponding receiving portion, has a rectangular, optionally square, cross-section; and/or the, or each radiolucent projection, comprises a securing means for releasably securing the respective projection in the corresponding receiving portion, optionally wherein the securing means is a sprung portion.
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.
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) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kantrowitz (US 6199233 B1; March 13, 2001).
Regarding claim 11, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 1. Kantrowitz further teaches comprising two projections (Figure 3 Element 86), provided at a first end of the attachment, at opposite lateral ends of the first end of the attachment (Seen in Figure 3).
Kantrowitz does not teach that the projections are radiolucent. However at PHOSITA at the time of filing would also specified that the two projections are radiolucent to ensure maximum area of the device is radiotranslucent to ensure increased light transmission.
Regarding claim 17, Kantrowitz teaches the radiolucent attachment of claim 14. Kantrowitz does not teach wherein: the radiolucent insert comprises a substantially circular portion for supporting a head of the patient, optionally wherein: the radiolucent insert further comprises a support plate having a circular recess, and the circular portion comprises at least one, radiolucent, ring reversibly insertable into the circular recess for supporting a head of the patient, further optionally the more than one rings are stackable; or the circular portion comprises a ring-shaped protrusion, further optionally wherein the circular portion further comprise a spherical cap, arranged opposite the ring- shaped protrusion.
However, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to specify the radiolucent insert is substantially circular since it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice.
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- US 6557195 B2 teaches a radiolucent table.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISSELLE GUTIERREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00PM.
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.
/GISSELLE GUTIERREZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights