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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2026 and 04/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this submission of the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
2. The amendment filed 07/02/2026 has been entered. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 20, 22, 24-27, and 29-31 remain pending in the application. Independent claims 1 and 31 were amended, without the addition of new matter, to include further narrowing limitations without the addition of new matter. Additionally, claims 1, 3, 5-7 9, 11-15, 16, 20, 22, 24-27 and 29-31 were amended to correct previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(B) rejections that were set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1 and 31 is sufficient to overcome the previous 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejections recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/02/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks on Pages 4-5, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection = under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amended claims have changed the scope of the claims and upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of new and current prior art of the record: Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) , Coonrad et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5014375), Davis et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160120319), Tinsley (U.S. Patent No. 7020918), Voss (U.S. Patent No. 4752064), Yacoub (U.S. Patent No. 6427272), Edelson (U.S. Patent No. 4987625), Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20220007849), Whipple et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210121349), Pi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160199243), and Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953).
4. Overall, Examiner notes that Applicant may amend the claims to overcome the prior art of record by reciting positive limitations such as Applicant’s Figure 1 showing the channel end near a center area of the inferior section. Also, in Figure 1 the cupped/rounded convex superior section extend upward to top surface shown as the dashed line. Also, in Figure 3 the horizontal member is at the bottom surface at the inferior end of the inferior section as opposed to both Coonrad and Davis. Also, reciting spatial positional relationship of various structure relative to one another to overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, any negative limitation such as –not—or –without— to teach away from the prior art. Lastly, transitional phrases such as –consisting— or –consisting essentially of-- in the preamble or body of the claim to prevent prior art combinations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, rephrase “lateral sides of the inferior section support the patient's pelvis” to read -- lateral sides of the inferior section are configured to support the patient's pelvis--.
In claim 13, rephrase “may be” to read --is--.
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.
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 is: “securement device” in claim 29.
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. The term “device” followed by functional language is a generic placeholder for the phrase “means for”. For examination purposes, “securement device” in claim 29 is interpreted as adhesive, a hydrogel, rubber or other frictional material, a hook and loop fastener, a rope or cord, or combinations thereof (Specification, Paragraph 31).
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
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 22, 24, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953).
Regarding claim 1, Gearhart discloses A patient positioning system 10 (Col. 2, lines 25-65; Col. 3, lines 12-20 and 40-55; and Figure 3: prone patient positioning system 10 made of foam base with upper-body superior section 12 and separate pelvic inferior section 14. The superior section 12 has a cavity formed by concave breast arcs 30 and inferior section has a cavity formed by concave abdomen 28. These concavity 28,30 together form boundary of an internal cavity 22 at hip, abdomen, and breast) configured to position the patient in a prone position, the patient positioning system10 comprising: a base 12,14 shaped to support a patient's thorax and pelvis comprising a superior section 12 and a separate inferior section 14, wherein the superior section 12 and the inferior section 14 form a cavity 22 when in an assembled configuration, wherein the cavity 22 extends along 28,30 a portion of both the superior 12 and inferior 14 sections, wherein the cavity 22 is configured to relieve pressure on the chest, abdomen, and groin of the patient.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Gearhart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the cavity narrows toward an inferior end of the cavity such that lateral sides of the inferior section are configured to support the patient's pelvis while avoiding direct placement of pressure on the patient's groin.
Harte teaches an analogous patient positioning system (Paragraph 25 and Figure 7, cushioning pateient support for legs and torso with superior section 120 and inferior section 122 and pelvic region in gap cavity 116 therebetween. Lateral arms 124 of inferior section 122 aligns with lateral arms 114 of superior section 120) wherein the analogous cavity 116 narrows toward an analogous inferior end of the analogous cavity 116 such that analogous lateral sides 124 of the analogous inferior section122 are configured to support the patient's pelvis while avoiding direct placement of pressure on the patient's groin.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lateral sides of the inferior and superior sections of Gearhart, so that the lateral sides of the inferior and superior sections align such that the cavity narrows toward an inferior end of the cavity such that lateral sides of the inferior section are configured to support the patient's pelvis while avoiding direct placement of pressure on the patient's groin, as taught by Harte, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced inferior-superior section connection and cavity that allows legs to rest on side lateral frame while groin is in gap for pelvic, genital, and rectal comfort (Harte, Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above. Gearhart further discloses wherein the widest point (Figure 3, upper boundary 30 wider than lower boundary 28) of the cavity 22 is at a superior end 30 of the cavity 22, so that the superior end 30 of the cavity is configured to accommodate a woman's breasts.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above. Gearhart further discloses wherein corners (Figure 3) of the superior section 30 of the cavity 22 have arcs that are curved.
However, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte fails to explicitly disclose arcs curved to at least 90 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arc curves of Gearhart in view of Harte to curve at least 90 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the arcs of Gearhart would not operate differently with the claimed curvature and since the arcs of Gearhart are intended to accommodate a user’s rounded breast, the arcs would function appropriately having the claimed curvature, especially for different sized users. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above. Gearhart further discloses wherein the cavity 22 penetrates the base 12,14 completely from a top surface (Figure 3) of the base 12,14 to a bottom surface (Figure 3) of the base 12,14.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above. Gearhart further discloses wherein, when in a disassembled configuration, the superior section i12 includes an open inferior end (Figure 3) in communication with the cavity 22, and the inferior section 14 includes an open superior end (Figure 3) in communication with the cavity 22.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above. Gearhart further discloses a notch 20 (Col. 2, line 38 and Figure 3, notch 20 for user’s head to allow breathing) located at the superior end of the superior section 12, the notch 20 being configured to accommodate the patient's head (this part of “or” is not being examined).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above. Gearhart further discloses wherein the base 12,14 (Col. 3, lines 40-43) is comprised of foam.
Regarding claim 31, Gearhart discloses A patient positioning system 10 (Col. 2, lines 25-65; Col. 3, lines 12-20 and 40-55; and Figure 3: prone patient positioning system 10 made of foam base with upper-body superior section 12 and separate pelvic inferior section 14. The superior section 12 has a cavity formed by concave breast arcs 30 and inferior section has a cavity formed by concave abdomen 28. These concavity 28,30 together form boundary of an internal cavity 22 at hip, abdomen, and breast) configured to position the patient in a prone position, the patient positioning system10 comprising: a base 12,14 shaped to support a patient's thorax and pelvis comprising a superior section 12 and a separate inferior section 14, wherein the superior section 12 and the inferior section 14 form a cavity 22 when in an assembled configuration, wherein the cavity 22 extends continuously along 28,30 a portion of both the superior 12 and inferior 14 sections, wherein the cavity 22 is widest at a superior portion Figure 3, upper boundary 30 wider than lower boundary 28) at 22, wherein the cavity 22 is configured to relieve pressure on the chest, abdomen, and groin of the patient.
However, Gearhart fails to explicitly disclose lateral side of the superior section and lateral side of the inferior section align to form the cavity, wherein the cavity extends continuously between the lateral sides of the superior and the lateral sides of the inferior sections.
Harte teaches an analogous patient positioning system (Paragraph 25 and Figure 7, cushioning pateient support for legs and torso with superior section 120 and inferior section 122 and pelvic region in gap cavity 116 therebetween. Lateral arms 124 of inferior section 122 aligns with lateral arms 114 of superior section 120) wherein the analogous lateral side114 of the superior section 120 and analogous lateral side 124 of the analogous inferior section 122 align to form the analogous cavity 116 , wherein the analogous cavity 116 extends continuously between the analogous lateral sides 114 of the analogous superior 120 and the analogous lateral sides124 of the analogous inferior 122 sections.
PNG
media_image2.png
252
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lateral sides of the inferior and superior sections of Gearhart, so that t lateral side of the superior section and lateral side of the inferior section align to form the cavity, wherein the cavity extends continuously between the lateral sides of the superior and the lateral sides of the inferior sections., as taught by Harte, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced inferior-superior section connection and cavity that allows legs to rest on side lateral frame while groin is in gap for pelvic, genital, and rectal comfort (Harte, Paragraph 25).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 8, and in further view of Coonrad et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5014375) and Davis et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160120319) .
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the superior section further comprises a horizontal member, wherein the horizontal member laterally spans the cavity so as to prevent lateral sides of the superior section from splaying, wherein the horizontal member is attached at or near the open inferior end of the superior section; (2) wherein the horizontal member is attached to the lateral sides of the superior section.
Coonrad teaches an analogous prone patient positioning system 12,16 (Col. 4, lines 40-67, Col. 5, lines 5-35, Col. 6, lines 1-12, and Figure 1, prone patient support 12,16 with inferior section 16 and superior section 12 having a cavity 18 with a horizontal member 66 that spans cavity between members 62,64 for increased stability) wherein the analogous superior section further comprises a horizontal member 66, wherein the horizontal member 66 laterally spans the cavity so as to prevent lateral sides 62,64 of the analogous superior section 12 from splaying, wherein the horizontal member 66 is attached the superior section at (this part of “or” statement is not being examined) the analogous open inferior end (Figure 1, open inferior end of cavity 18) of the analogous superior section 12
PNG
media_image3.png
628
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the superior section of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that the superior section further comprises a horizontal member, wherein the horizontal member laterally spans the cavity so as to prevent lateral sides of the superior section from splaying wherein the horizontal member is attached the superior section at the open inferior end of the superior section, as taught by Coonrad, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced superior section that has as horizontal member for providing connection between sides of the cavity for increased stability and preventing collapse of the sides and cavity (Coonrad, Col. 6, lines 1-12).
However, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Coonrad fails to explicitly disclose (2) wherein the horizontal member is attached to the lateral sides of the superior section.
Davis teaches an analogous patient positioning system 200 (Paragraphs 57-59 and Figure 8, patient sitting support 200 with cavity 210,280 having horizontal bar 250 attached to internal lateral sides of the support section 200 preventing partial/full closing/collapsing of the cavity 210,280) wherein the analogous horizontal member 250 within the analogous cavity 210,280 is attached to the analogous lateral sides (Figure 8) of the similar support section 200.
PNG
media_image4.png
443
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an attachment of the horizontal member of superior section of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Coonrad, so that the horizontal member is attached to the lateral sides of the section, as taught by Davis, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced horizontal member attachment at the open end of the cavity for providing connection between lateral sides of the cavity for increased collapse of the sides, especially from caving inwards into the cavity (Davis, Paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Coonrad in view of Davis discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the horizontal member (Coonrad, Col. 4, lines 40-67, Col. 5, lines 5-35, Col. 6, lines 1-12, and Figure 1, prone patient support 12,16 with inferior section 16 and superior section 12 having a cavity 18 with a horizontal member 66 that spans cavity between members 62,64 for increased stability) is attached to the lateral sides (Davis, Paragraphs 57-59 and Figure 8, horizontal bar 250 attached to internal lateral sides of the support section 200) of the superior section 12 (Gearhart, Col. 2, lines 25-65; Col. 3, lines 12-20 and 40-55; and Figure 3) at 12 (Gearhart, Col. 2, lines 25-65; Col. 3, lines 12-20 and 40-55; and Figure 3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Tinsley (U.S. Patent No. 7020918).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the inferior section inclines upwardly in an inferior to superior direction.
Tinsley teaches an analogous prone patient positioning system 10 (Col. 2, lines 20-35 and 61-67 and Figures 1-2, prone support 10 with superior section 30 for breast and inferior section 40 for hip area that triangularly 42 inclines towards superior direction) with an analogous superior section 30 and wherein the analogous inferior section 40 inclines upwardly in an inferior to superior direction.
PNG
media_image5.png
201
522
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inferior section of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that the inferior section inclines upwardly in an inferior to superior direction, as taught by Tinsley, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced inferior section that triangularly inclines for desirable pelvic and abdomen inclining support (Tinsley, Col. 2, line 61-67).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Pi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20160199243 ).
Regarding claim 13, although the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above and further discloses a bending of the inferior and superior section at a waist (Harte, Paragraph 29 and Figure 11), the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte still fails to explicitly disclose wherein a superior end of the inferior section includes a cupped surface, an inferior end of the superior section includes a rounded surface that corresponds to the cupped surface of the inferior section, such that the superior section may be positioned at an angle relative to the inferior section by a hinge defined by the cupped surface and the rounded surface, while maintaining contact between the cupped surface of the inferior section and the rounded surface of the superior section to support a patient in a prone position with the patient bent at the waist.
Pi teaches an analogous patient positioning system (Paragraph 28 and Figure 12: patient support with inferior section 11,12 and superior sections 2. Superior end 11 of inferior section 11,12 has concave cup to receive convex rounded inferior end of superior section 2 for angular hinge adjustment) wherein an analogous superior end 11 of the analogous inferior section 11,12 includes a cupped surface 11, an analogous inferior end of the analogous superior section 2 includes a rounded surface that corresponds to the cupped surface 11 of the analogous inferior section 11,12, such that the analogous superior section 2 may be positioned at an angle relative to the analogous inferior section 11,12 by a hinge defined by the cupped surface 11 and the rounded surface, while maintaining contact between the cupped surface 11 of the analogous inferior section 11,12 and the rounded surface of the analogous superior section 2 to support a patient.
PNG
media_image6.png
377
423
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a connection between the superior section and the inferior section of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that wherein a superior end of the inferior section includes a cupped surface, an inferior end of the superior section includes a rounded surface that corresponds to the cupped surface of the inferior section, such that the superior section may be positioned at an angle relative to the inferior section by a hinge defined by the cupped surface and the rounded surface, while maintaining contact between the cupped surface of the inferior section and the rounded surface of the superior section to support a patient, as taught by Pi (and thereby support a patient in a prone position with the patient bent at the waist in the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Pi), in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced connection between the superior and inferior sections allowing for inferior concave to superior convex matching for angular adjustability to correspond to desirable hinged angular positioning and sizing of various users (Pi, Paragraph 28).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Voss (U.S. Patent No. 4752064).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base further comprises one or more channels that extend upwardly from a bottom surface of the base.
Voss teaches an analogous prone patient positioning system 10 (Col. 3, lines 28-40, prone head support 10 with base 12 having lateral channels 26 therein) wherein the analogous base 12 further comprises 26 that extend upwardly (Figures 2-3, dorsal/upward extending channels from ventral bottom surface of body 12) from an analogous bottom surface (Figures 2-3) of the analogous base 12.
PNG
media_image7.png
286
260
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
296
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that the base further comprises one or more channels that extend upwardly from a bottom surface of the base, as taught by Voss, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced base having channels allowing for medical instrumentation tubes to extend through the channels and into the cavity for desirable medical/therapeutic procedures (Voss, Col. 3, lines 28-40).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953) in view of Voss (U.S. Patent No. 4752064), as applied to claim 14, and in further view of Yacoub (U.S. Patent No. 6427272).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Voss discloses the invention as described above and further discloses a lateral channel 26 (Voss, Col. 3, lines 28-40 and Figure 2, lateral channel 26 near inferior end 18 of cavity) (this part of “or” statement is not being examined) 28 (Gearhart, Figure 3) of the cavity 22 (Gearhart, Figure 3).
However, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Voss fails to explicitly disclose a longitudinal channel, wherein the lateral channel and the longitudinal channel intersect at or near an inferior end of the cavity.
Yacoub teaches an analogous prone patient positioning system 10 (Col. 3, lines 6-45, and Figures 1-2, prone patient support 10 with cavity 28 and longitudinal channels 20,26 and transverse lateral channels 22,24 intersecting at cavity 28) further comprising a longitudinal channel 20,26, wherein the analogous lateral channel 22,24 and the longitudinal channel 20,26, intersect.
PNG
media_image9.png
393
507
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base with the lateral channel near the inferior end of cavity of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Voss, so that there is also a longitudinal channel, wherein the lateral channel and the longitudinal channel intersect, as taught by Yacoub (thereby in the combination of Gearhart in view of Voss in view of Yacoub the longitudinal and lateral channels intersect near the inferior end of the cavity), in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced base that also has a longitudinal channel in addition to the lateral channel for desirable maneuvering of medical tubing/instrumentation across various body regions and access location, thereby improving patient comfort (Yacoub, Col. 3, lines 6-45).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Edelson (U.S. Patent No. 4987625).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein corner surfaces at a superior end of the superior section slant downwardly relative to an upper surface of the superior section, wherein the corner surfaces at the superior end of the superior section are configured to relieve pressure on the patient's arms and shoulders.
Edelson teaches an analogous prone patient positioning system 20 (Col. 3, lines 51-65 and Figures 1 and 7, prone patient support 20 with superior section 21 and inferior section 25. The superior section21 has ventrally/downwardly slanted left and right corner surfaces 24 for ergonomic shoulder arm support) wherein corner surfaces 24 at an analogous superior end 22 of the analogous superior section 21 slant downwardly relative to an analogous upper surface of the analogous superior section 21, wherein the corner surfaces 24 at the analogous superior end 22 of the analogous superior section 21 are configured to relieve pressure on the patient's arms and shoulders.
PNG
media_image10.png
177
486
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
203
466
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a superior end of the superior section of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that there are corner surfaces at a superior end of the superior section slant downwardly relative to an upper surface of the superior section, wherein the corner surfaces at the superior end of the superior section are configured to relieve pressure on the patient's arms and shoulders, as taught by Edelson, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced superior section having left and right corner section for ergonomic arm and shoulder positioning while in a prone position (Edelson Col. 3, lines 51-65).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Hall et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20220007849).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the base comprises two or more layers.
Hall teaches an analogous patient positioning system 170b (Paragraph 44 and Figures 11 and 13, pillow base 170b made of high density foam first layer 194 and low density memory foam upper layer 196) wherein the analogous base 170b comprises two (this part of “or” statement is not being examined) layers 194,196.
PNG
media_image12.png
606
543
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
787
531
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foam base material of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that the base comprises two layers, as taught by Hall, in order to provide an improved patient positioning system with an enhanced base formed from a lower high density foam and an upper closer to user’s body low density memory foam for providing desirably cushioning to the user at the upper side while maintaining support at the lower side (Hall, Paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte Hall discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein a top layer 196 (Hall, Paragraph 44 and Figures 11 and 13, softer memory foam top layer 196 closer to user) of the base 12,14 (Gearhart, Figure 3) is softer than a bottom layer 194 (Hall, Paragraph 44 and Figures 11 and 13) so that the bottom laver 194 (Hall, Paragraph 44 and Figures 11 and 13) provides greater structural support than the top laver 196 (Hall, Paragraph 44 and Figures 11 and 13).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Hall discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the top layer 196 (Hall, Paragraph 44 and Figures 11 and 13, softer memory foam top layer 196 closer to user) is formed from memory foam.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gearhart (U.S. Patent No. 5647076) in view of Harte (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20170099953), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Whipple et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20210121349).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte discloses the invention as described above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein one or more securement devices are located on the bottom surface of the base, and wherein the one or more securement devices are configured to secure the base against a substructure.
Whipple teaches an analogous prone patient positioning system 1 (Paragraphs 3, 16, and 23 and Figures 1-4, prone patient support system with breast cavity and base 11 having plurality of fasteners 17 to secure to substructure table 2) wherein (this part of “or” statement is not being examined)17 are located on an analogous bottom surface of the analogous base 11, and wherein the 17 are configured to secure the analogous base 11 against a substructure 2.
PNG
media_image14.png
463
437
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
416
435
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary level of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a bottom surface of the base of Gearhart in view of Harte, so that there are securement devices located on the bottom surface of the base, and wherein the securement devices are configured to secure the base against a substructure, as taught by Whipple, in order to provide an improved prone patient positioning system with an enhanced base having bottom/ventral fasteners for securement to an underlying table for ensuring the base remains stable and doesn’t move from the table (Whipple, Paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Gearhart in view of Harte in view of Whipple discloses the invention as described above and further discloses wherein the securement device (Whipple, Paragraph 23 and Figure 4) comprises (Whipple, Paragraph 23 and Figure 4) (this part of “or” statement is not being examined).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Milo whose telephone number is (571)272-6476. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00-5:00.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached on +1(571) 270-3076. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MILO/
Art Unit 3786
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights