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 .
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: “a raising and lowering operation portion for raising and lowering the seat … the raising and lowering operation portion includes a front operation portion … and a rear operation portion” in claim 1. The structure disclosed in the original disclosure is push-button 50F and/or lever elements 50R ([0053], [0060-0061] of instant application publication).
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 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.
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson et al., US 20170027541 A1 (“Henderson”) in view of Areeta et al., US 20040262867 A1 (‘Areeta”).
Regarding claim 17, Henderson discloses a cart for an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (e.g. [0043] “cart 400”, Fig. 4A) comprising: a seat (support structure “500” -Fig. 4A) on which a portable ultrasound diagnostic apparatus is placed ([0043] and illustration Fig. 4A); a handle (handrail “1300” - Fig. 4A) connected to the seat ([0043] and illustration Fig. 4A); a columnar support (vertical support member “420”- Fig. 4A) that supports the seat to be raisable and lowerable ([0043], [0056] “telescopic feature of vertical support member 420”); a push-button for raising and lowering the seat ([0056] “ .. height adjustment actuator 426 adjusts the height of portable ultrasound cart 400 responsive to an input from an operator ( e.g., via a button command …)”); a plurality of leg portions (“432” - Fig. 4A) that support the columnar support ([0057]); and casters (“434” - Fig. 4A) disposed on the leg portions ([0057]); and wherein the handle includes a front handle disposed in front of the seat (see illustration Fig. 10).
Henderson does not explicitly disclose that the push-button is disposed below a center of the front handle in a lateral direction, and the seat locked to be unraisable and unlowerable is unlocked in a case where the push-button is pressed. Attention is directed to Areeta in the same field of endeavor of medical carts ([abstract]) or alternatively, in the same problem solving area of raising or lowering a cart ([0074-0075]) wherein a button 444 (Figs. 1, 9A, 9B and 10B) is provided on a front handle 360 that is pushed to allow raising and lowering work platform 340, as discussed in [0074-0075] the work platform is locked to be unraisable and unlowerable in a case where the push button is released.
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the handle of Henderson to include a push-button as taught by Areeta, to facilitate raising and lowering the support structure/seat as required by Henderson, because Henderson suggests the use of a button and Areeta exemplifies that it was known to use a push-button in the prior art to perform the same exact function. In regards to the push button being disposed below a center of the front handle in a lateral direction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to position the push-button below a center of the front handle in a lateral direction as this would be an ergonomically optimal location that would allow the use of the thump to press on the button while pushing down or pulling on the handle while the hands are wrapped on the handle and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (in this case, optimum location for the push-button)involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05 (II-B)).
Regarding claim 18, Henderson in view of Areeta disclose the invention of claim 17 as discussed above, in view of Fig. 4A, 10 and 13, the handrail wraps around or surrounds the support structure/seat, defining, front, rear and side handles (see e.g. [0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 19, Henderson in view of Areeta disclose the invention of claim 17 as discussed above, Henderson further discloses in Fig. 4A and [0043] “… portable ultrasound system 300 includes portable ultrasound device 100 and portable ultrasound cart 400”.
Regarding claim 20, Henderson in view of Areeta disclose the invention of claim 18 as discussed above, Henderson further discloses in [0043] “… portable ultrasound system 300 includes portable ultrasound device 100 and portable ultrasound cart 400” Fig. 4A illustrates the portable ultrasound diagnostic apparatus placed on the seat of the cart.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Ahn et al., US 20110224544 A1 (“Ahn”).
Regarding claim 1, Henderson discloses a cart for an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (e.g. [0043] “cart 400”, Fig. 4A) comprising: a seat (support structure “500” -Fig. 4A) on which a portable ultrasound diagnostic apparatus is placed ([0043] and illustration Fig. 4A); a handle (handrail “1300” - Fig. 4A) connected to the seat ([0043] and illustration Fig. 4A); a columnar support (vertical support member “420”- Fig. 4A) that supports the seat to be raisable and lowerable ([0043], [0056] “telescopic feature of vertical support member 420”); a plurality of leg portions (“432” - Fig. 4A) that support the columnar support ([0057]); and casters (“434” - Fig. 4A) disposed on the leg portions ([0057]); and wherein the handle includes a front handle disposed in front of the seat and a rear handle disposed behind the seat (see illustration Fig. 4A, 9 and 10, [0067-0068], the handle wraps around or surround the support structure or seat).
Henderson teaches in [0056] “the height adjustment actuator 426 adjusts the height of portable ultrasound cart 400 responsive to an input from an operator ( e.g., via a button command, a lever actuation, a command on portable ultrasound device 100, etc.)” a button on lever are an equivalent thereof for a raising and lowering operation portion for raising and lowering the seat. Henderson differs with the claimed invention in that Henderson does not explicitly disclose the raising and lowering operation portion includes a front operation portion disposed below the front handle and a rear operation portion disposed below the rear handle.
Ahn discloses an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus that is provided with a variable elevation control panel, a support supporting the control panel and a lift connected to the support and operated by manipulation of a lift operating part to lift or lower the support ([0011-0012], Figs.1-3). Fig. 3 discloses a lower part (“22”) of control panel 20 comprising a lift operating part 25 provided with a gripping portion “26” to be moved into lift operating portion 25 when gripped by a user, to allow for lifting or lowering of the control panel 20 ([0033-0038]).
In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided below the front and rear handle of Henderson with an operation portion that can be moved towards the handle, to allow for lifting or lowering the support structure or seat as required by Henderson, and provided such an equivalent therefore raising and lowering portion was known in the prior art as exemplified by Ahn. In regards to providing the raising and lowering portion to both the front and rear handle, this modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, so as to allow lifting or lowering the support structure/seat from either or both the front and rear handle.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Ahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Areeta.
Regarding claim 5, Henderson in view of Ahn discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, Henderson discloses in [0055] and as illustrated in Fig. 4A a, the columnar support “420” comprises an upper columnar support (“422”) to which the seat is connected, a lower columnar support (“424”) disposed below the upper columnar support, , the columnar support has a structure that expands and contracts by one of the upper columnar support or the lower columnar support being inserted into the other (“upper support member 422 is positioned within lower support member 424, providing a telescoping feature…”). Henderson teaches in [0056] “vertical support member 420 includes an actuator (e.g., a gas shock …)” the gas shock would comprise a gas spring that would be disposed inside the upper columnar support and the lower columnar support and an end of the gas spring will be fixed to the seat, and the other end will be fixed to the lower columnar support or a support body disposed below the lower columnar support, the gas spring would include an unlocking pin, the gas spring would fix the seat to the lower columnar support in a non-operative state of the unlocking pin, the gas spring would release the fixing of the seat to the lower columnar support in an operative state of the unlocking pin and biases the seat upward with respect to the lower columnar support, and the front operation portion or the rear operation portion changes the unlocking pin from the non-operative state to the operative state by being operated as exemplified by an analogous structure in Areeta in Figs. 2, 9A, 9B and 10B and associated discussion in [0069-0071] and [0074]).
Even in the event it is argued that the gas spring in Henderson in view of Ahn is not necessarily arranged as discussed by Areeta, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arranged the gas spring in Henderson as detailed in Areeta, as this is a known prior art configuration for connecting a support structure with a telescoping support column and an a raising and lowering portion, to perform the same function in Henderson.
Regarding claim 9, Henderson in view of Ahn and Areeta disclose the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, in view of Fig. 4A, 10 and 13 of Henderson, the handrail wraps around or surrounds the support structure/seat, defining, front, rear and side handles (see e.g. [0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Henderson in view of Ahn and Areeta disclose the invention of claim 1 as discussed above Henderson further discloses in [0043] “… portable ultrasound system 300 includes portable ultrasound device 100 and portable ultrasound cart 400” Fig. 4A illustrates the portable ultrasound diagnostic apparatus placed on the seat of the cart.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 10 and 14, [as to claim 2], as discussed in claim 1 above, modified Henderson does not explicitly disclose that the front operation portion is a push-button, however, since Henderson discloses that a button and lever are art recognized equivalents in [0056] regarding button command and lever command as art recognized equivalents, and Areeta discloses a button 444 (Figs. 1, 9A, 9B and 10B) that is pushed to allow raising and lowering work platform 340, as discussed in [0074-0075] the work platform is locked to be unraisable and unlowerable in a case where the push button is released, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to have substituted the lever type device disclosed in Henderson in view of Ahn as discussed in claim 1 above, with a button as disclosed by Areeta, to perform the same function and arrive at the claimed invention as such a modification amounts to nothing more than the mere substitution of known equivalents which has previously been held to be unpatentable (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 82 USPQ2d 1385, In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982)). [As to claim 6, 10 and 14] see discussion in claims 5, 9 and 13 above respectively, the discussion and citations therein are equally applicable here and will not be repeated for brevity’s sake.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 11 and 15, [as to claim 3] as discussed in claim 2 above, and discussion in claim 1 above, the rear operation portion in Henderson as modified by the teachings of Ahn is a lever, and as modified in claim 1 would be positioned below the rear handle. In view of the teachings of Ahn(e.g., [0033-0038]) the seat locked to be unraisable or unlowerable is unlocked in a case where the lever is pulled/squeezed. [As to claim 7, 11 and 15 see discussion in claims 5, 9 and 13 above respectively, the discussion and citations therein are equally applicable here and will not be repeated for brevity’s sake.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12 and 16, [as to claim 4], as discussed in claim 3 above and discussion in claim 1, the lever includes two lever elements (see Ahn Fig. 3, two lever elements 26 are disposed at an interval in a lateral direction separated by portion 27) and the seat locked to be unraisable or unlowerable is unlocked in a case where the lever is pulled/squeezed as discussed in claim 3 above. [As to claim 8, 12 and 16 see discussion in claims 5, 9 and 13 above respectively, the discussion and citations therein are equally applicable here and will not be repeated for brevity’s sake.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797