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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the truncated cone shape of the coupling portion of claim 2, the plurality of through holes being “of the cone type” of claim 5, the plurality of reinforcing cross beams of claim 12, and heating means of claim 14 all must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification uses the term “quatern” which is not a word found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “a quire of paper”. Thus, the amendment should be amended to replace the recitations of “quatern” with a known descriptive term, or amending the specification to include a description of what is “a quatern”.
The specification uses the term “incident” to define a direction of the holes with respect to the platform. Incident is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “occurring or likely to occur especially as a minor consequence or accompaniment” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incident). Thus, the specification lacks clarity on what applicant is describing when using the term “incident”. Examiner recommends removal of the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Postural table to promote” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “A postural table configured to promote” to properly present the limitation, and to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the/said table” in lines 1 and 2. These limitations, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the/said postural table” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “to promote restoration of postural symmetry” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “to promote a restoration of a postural symmetry” to properly present the limitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “having planar development and quadrangular contour to define a holding plane for a patient” in lines 4-5. This limitation should be amended to recite “having a planar development and a quadrangular contour to define a holding plane for a patient” to properly present the limitations and to avoid positively reciting a human organism.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of holes” in line 7. This limitation, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “the plurality of through holes” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the fact” in line 11. This limitation should be deleted to avoid a lack of antecedent basis, and because it is unnecessary to include after the transitional phrase “characterized by”.
Claims 2-14 each recite “Postural table according to”. These preambles should be amended to recite “The postural table according to” to maintain consistency in the claims.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “of truncated cone shape” in line 2. This limitation should be amended to recite “a truncated cone shape” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “of cylindrical shape” in line 3. This limitation should be amended to recite “a cylindrical shape” to properly present the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a first pair of sides, parallel to each other and a second pair of sides, parallel to each other”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first pair of parallel sides, and a second pair of parallel sides” to remove the use of a reciprocal pronoun which may render the claim unclear.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “spaced apart from each other” in lines 3 and 5. These limitations should be amended to remove the use of a reciprocal pronoun which may render the claim unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “with axial- symmetric arrangement”. This limitation should be amended to recite “with an axial-symmetric arrangement” to properly present the limitation, and remove the improperly spaced hyphenated limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “made of flexible closed-cell polyurethane”. This limitation should be amended to recite “made of a flexible closed-cell polyurethane foam” to properly present the limitation, and to recite “foam” so as to avoid a lack of clarity if Applicant is claiming closed cell rubbers, films, etc.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein said platform (2) is connected below, where the lower slab-shaped element (5) is located, to a framing (7)”. This limitation should be amended to recite “wherein said platform (2) is connected below the lower slab-shaped element (5) to a framing (7)” to concisely and clearly claim a position of the connection between the platform and framing.
Claims 10 and 11 recites the limitation “quatern” with respect to the vertices, pivoting wheels, and elevations. As discussed above, the term quatern is not found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the definition found in the Oxford English Dictionary is not descriptive of a quantity. In view of the figures, this limitation is not unclear that Applicant is claiming four vertices, pivoting wheels, and elevations. However, Examiner recommends either amending the claims to recite “a plurality of four”, “a first pair and a second pair”, or something similar in order to utilize a known descriptive term, or amending the specification to recite a description of “quatern”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “where the quatern of vertices is located”. This limitation should be amended to recite “where the quatern of vertices are located” to be grammatically correct.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “a respective vertex” and “a respective pivoting wheel”. These limitations, while not unclear, should be amended to recite “a respective vertex of the quatern of vertices” and “a respective pivoting wheel of the quatern of pivoting wheels”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “Postural table system” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “A postural table system”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “made according to claim 1” in lines 2 and 4. This limitation implies a method of manufacturing which is not recited in claim 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first/second postural table according to claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a vertical plane” in line 6. This limitation should be amended to recite “the vertical plane” as a vertical plane was recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “Postural table system” in line 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “A postural table system”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “made according to claim 1” in lines 2 and 4. This limitation implies a method of manufacturing which is not recited in claim 1. This limitation should be amended to recite “a first/second postural table according to claim 1.
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.
Claim limitation “movement means” (means for movement) in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification page 7 recites “the movement means are of the pneumatic, electrical, or manual type” which does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “heating means to allow the temperature of said platform to change” in claim 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification page 7 recites “the table may be provided with heating means to allow the temperature of the platform to change” which does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the patient" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a patient”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a patient” in line 5. This limitation is unclear given the preamble of claim 1 recites “the patient”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the later recited patient is a new patient or the same patient. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the patient”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the points of restraint" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as a plurality of points of restraint”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “support of one portion of the patient’s body” in line 9. This limitation is unclear given the earlier recitation of “one limb” (i.e. one portion of the patient’s body). Thus, it is unclear as to if the later recited one portion is a new portion or the one limb. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the patient’s body" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a body of the patient”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the others" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and this limitation is unclear as to what Applicant is referring to with “others” (other portions, other patients, other points of restraint, etc.). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a second portion of the patient’s body”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a part of their body”. This limitation is unclear given the claim 1’s recitation of “one limb” and “one portion of the patient’s body”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the later part of the patient’s body recited in claim 2 is a new part or is one of the earlier recited “one limb” and “one portion of the patient’s body”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a direction incident”. This limitation is unclear as to what is being claimed because incident does not define a direction or orientation as discussed above. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “preferably perpendicular”. This limitation is unclear as to if the perpendicular aspect of the through holes is required by the claim, or merely a preferred embodiment. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as an optional embodiment, and thus, the prior art does not need to explicitly disclose this limitation to meet the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the same”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis, and is unclear as to what is being claimed by the recitation “the same” (the same direction, the same through hole, the same platform, the same pins, etc.). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “preferably of 4cm”. This limitation is unclear as to if the claimed diameter of 4cm is required by the claim, or merely a preferred embodiment. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as an optional embodiment, and thus, the prior art does not need to explicitly disclose this limitation to meet the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “of the conical type”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Additionally, this phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear as to if “the conical type” include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first plurality of hole rows” and “a second plurality of hole rows”. These limitations are considered unclear as to if the hole rows include new holes not encompassed by the plurality of through holes recited in claim 1, or if these are new holes. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret these limitations as “a first/second portion of the plurality of through holes are arranged in a first/second plurality of hole rows”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a longitudinal direction, a transverse direction, and a center-to-center distance” in lines 5-6. These limitations are unclear given the earlier recitation of “a longitudinal direction, a transverse direction, and a center-to-center distance” in lines 3-4 of claim 7. Thus, it is unclear as to if the later recited directions and distance are a new directions and distance or the same. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the later recitations as being the same as the earlier recitations.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a center-to-center distance” in line 9. This limitation is unclear given the earlier recitation of “a center-to-center distance” in lines 3-4 of claim 7. Thus, it is unclear as to if the later recited distance is a new distance or the same. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the later recitations as being a new distance.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “of the memory foam type”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Additionally, this phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear as to if “the memory foam type” include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said pair of uprights (81) being connected to the pair of crossbeams (82) by defining a quatern of vertices (83)”. This limitation is considered unclear as to how can placing the pairs of structures adjacent to one another to define a quatern of vertices (corners) “connect” them as claimed. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the supporting surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the supporting plane”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said basement” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the bedplate”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a plurality of reinforcing crossbeams” in line 2. This limitation is unclear given the earlier recitation of “a pair of cross beams” in claim 10. Thus, it is unclear as to if the plurality of reinforcing crossbeams are a new plurality of crossbeams in addition to, or include the “pair of crossbeams” recited in claim 10. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “movement means”. As discussed above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “heating means”. As discussed above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a temperature”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “of the type”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Additionally, this phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear as to if “the type” include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a horizontal plane” in line 6. This limitation is unclear in view of the earlier recited “a first horizontal plane”. It is unclear as to if the horizontal plane of line 6 is a new horizontal plane or the same as the first horizontal plane. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as being the same as the first horizontal plane.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “parts of the human body” in line 6. This limitation is unclear given the claim 1’s recitation of “one limb” and “one portion of the patient’s body”. Thus, it is unclear as to if the parts of the human body recited in claim 15 is a new part or is one of the earlier recited “one limb” and “one portion of the patient’s body”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood
Claim 16 recites the limitation “of the type”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Additionally, this phrase renders the claim(s) indefinite because it is unclear as to if “the type” include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a first horizontal plane…a second horizontal plane…the second horizontal plane being coplanar to the first horizontal plane”. Because the two horizontal planes are “coplanar” (i.e. residing in the same horizontal plane) and the second horizontal plane defines an extension of the first horizontal plane, it is unclear as to how the first and second horizontal planes are different from one another. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the working plane” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a working plane”.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim, and thus, contains the same offending limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “on which the patient can push with one limb to stretch a group of muscle bundles or to define the points of restraint or support of one portion of the patient's body to stretch the others” positively recites part of the human body.
In regards to claim 2, the limitation “which the patient can rest or push with a part of their body.” positively recites part of the human body.
In regards to claim 15, the limitation “on which parts of the patient's body rest” positively recites part of the human body.
Claims 3-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims depend from claim 1 and thus, contain the same offending limitations.
To obviate a rejection under 35 USC 101, the Office suggests that any claim that would include a human being, or part thereof, within its scope should use “adapted to___” or “adapted for ___” or “configured to” or configured for” to define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter which is a permissible form of expression.
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, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumagai (US 5,289,603 A).
In regards to claim 1, Kumagai discloses Postural table (1; see [col 2 ln 40-45]; see figure 1) to promote, by laying the patient down on the table, a static stretching of muscles and/or to promote restoration of postural symmetry (see [col 3 ln 13-15]; retaining a desired posture allows for a static stretching as claimed), said table (1) comprising:
- a platform (3; see [col 2 ln 45]; see figure 1), having planar development and quadrangular contour to define a holding plane for a patient (see figure 1), having a plurality of through holes (11; see [col 2 ln 60-65]; see figure 1) transversely crossing the platform (3) with a direction incident to the holding plane (see figure 3);
- a plurality of pins (21; see [col 2 ln 60-65]; see figure 1) coupleable to the plurality of holes (11) to define anchoring points (see figure 1) on which the patient can push with one limb to stretch a group of muscle bundles or to define the points of restraint or support of one portion of the patient's body to stretch the others (21 when engaged with 11 can perform as claimed);
characterized by the fact that said platform (3) comprises a lower slab-shaped element (4; see [col 2 ln 45-50]; see figure 1), coupled to a mattress pad (7; see [col 2 ln 45-50]; see figure 1) extending along the entire quadrangular contour of the platform (3; see figure 1).
In regards to claim 6, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses wherein the platform (3) has a first pair of sides, parallel to each other, joined to a second pair of sides parallel to each other, said first pair of sides being shorter than the second pair of sides so as to define a rectangular perimeter of the table (1; see figures 1, and 7-8).
In regards to claim 7, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses, wherein said plurality of through holes (11) comprises:
- a first plurality of hole rows (rows of 19 with 5 holes; see figure 8), spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction and along a transverse direction by a center-to-center distance (see figure 8);
- a second plurality of hole rows (rows of 19 with 4 holes; see figure 8), spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal direction and along a transverse direction by a center-to-center distance (See figure 8),
said second plurality of hole rows being staggered from the first plurality of hole rows, both in the longitudinal direction and in the transverse direction, by a center-to-center distance (see figure 8).
In regards to claim 8, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses wherein said first plurality of hole rows and said second plurality of hole rows are evenly distributed throughout the platform with axial-symmetric arrangement along a longitudinal median axis of the platform and along a transverse median axis of the platform (see figure 8 that the rows are distributed as claimed throughout 3).
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of Neel et al. (US 2014/0201917 A1) (hereinafter Neel).
In regards to claim 2, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses wherein each pin belonging to the plurality of pins (21) has a coupling portion (31b; see [col 3 ln 1]; see figure 2), insertable into a corresponding hole belonging to the plurality of through holes (11; see figure 3), and a working portion of cylindrical shape (41; see [col 3 ln 10-15]; see figure 2), continuing the coupling portion (31b), on which the patient can rest or push with a part of their body (see figure 1).
Kumagai further discloses the coupling portion can be multiple polygonal shapes and designs (see [col 4 ln 5-15; see figures 5-6).
Kumagai does not explicitly disclose the coupling portion is of truncated cone shape.
However, Neel teaches an analogous plurality of pins (see figure 5) comprising an analogous working portion (10; see [0018]; see figure 3) and coupling portion (12; see [0019]; see figure 3) the coupling portion is of truncated cone shape (see figure 3 that 12 comprises a lower truncated cone shape).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the coupling portion of the plurality of pins as disclosed by Kumagai and to have formed the coupling portion as a truncated cone shape as taught by Neel in order to have provided an improved coupling portion that would add the benefit of providing a tapering end portion of the coupling portion to allow the coupling portion to be easily inserted within a corresponding hole while still being firmly fitted to the recess.
Further such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that a change in the shape of a structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the structure was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
In regards to claim 3, Kumagai as now modified by Neel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses wherein said plurality of pins (21) is coupleable to the plurality of through holes (11) according to a direction incident to the platform (3) preferably perpendicular to the same (see figure 3).
In regards to claim 4, Kumagai as now modified by Neel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai as now modified by Neel does not explicitly disclose wherein said working portion has an outer diameter of between 3.5 cm and 5 cm, preferably of 4 cm.
However, Kumagai teaches the thickness (i.e. the diameter) of the working portion (41) can be changed (see [col 2 ln 50-55]). Thus, a diameter of the working portion is considered to be a result effective variable in that changing the diameter of the working portion affects the durability of the peg and the ability of the pin to retain the patient in the desired posture (see [col 1 ln 55-58]), as well as the working portion’s ability to function as a shock absorber to reduce impact when the patient strains against the working portion (see [col 3 ln 25-30]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the diameter of working portion as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the working portion as disclosed by Kumagai as now modified by Neel by forming the diameter of the working portion within a range of 3.5-5 cm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). Such a modification would add the benefit of ensuring the working portions of the plurality of pins were of a sufficient diameter, and durability to retain the patient in the desired posture (see [col 1 ln 55-58]) and ensuring the working portions were of a sufficient thickness to function as a shock absorber to reduce impact when the patient strains against the working portion (see [col 3 ln 25-30]).
In regards to claim 5, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses that the coupling portions (fitting end portions) of the plurality of pins are fittedly inserted within the plurality of holes (11; see [col 3 ln 1-6]), and that the plurality of holes can have different shapes and sizes dependent on the shapes and sizes of the coupling portions to conform to the coupling portions (see [col 4 ln 1-15] and [col 4 ln 35-40])
Kumagai does not explicitly disclose wherein each hole belonging to the plurality of through holes is of the conical type.
However, Neel teaches an analogous plurality of pins (see figure 5) comprising an analogous working portion (10; see [0018]; see figure 3) and coupling portion (12; see [0019]; see figure 3) the coupling portion is of truncated cone shape (see figure 3 that 12 comprises a lower truncated cone shape).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the coupling portion of the plurality of pins as disclosed by Kumagai and to have formed the coupling portion as a truncated cone shape as taught by Neel in order to have provided an improved coupling portion that would add the benefit of providing a tapering end portion of the coupling portion to allow the coupling portion to be easily inserted within a corresponding hole while still being firmly fitted to the recess.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the plurality of through holes to match the truncated cone shape of the coupling portions in view of the disclosure of Kumagai which discloses the shapes and sizes dependent on the shapes and sizes of the coupling portions to conform to the coupling portions (see [col 4 ln 1-15] and [col 4 ln 35-40]) that would add the benefit of providing a shape of the plurality of holes which corresponds to the shape of the coupling portions to securely and fittedly engage the modified coupling portions of the plurality of pins.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of Santinelli Ramos (US 2015/0290063 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses the mattress pad (7) may be formed of plastic foam (see [col 2 ln 50-55]).
Kumagai does not explicitly disclose wherein said mattress pad is made of flexible closed-cell polyurethane preferably of the memory foam type.
However, Santinelli Ramos teaches an analogous postural table (101; see [0020]; see figure 1) comprising a platform (102; see [0021]; see figure 1) which comprises a mattress pad (109; see [0021]; see figure 2a); wherein said mattress pad (109) is made of flexible closed-cell polyurethane (see [0021]) preferably of the memory foam type.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the mattress pad as disclosed by Kumagai and to have formed the mattress pad from polyurethane closed cell foam as taught by Santinelli Ramos in order to have provided an improved mattress pad that would add the benefit of providing a material which conforms to the contours and shapes of the patient’s body to distribute their weight evenly and increase comfort when using the postural table.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of Sands (US 2,900,647 A).
In regards to claim 10, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses wherein said platform (3) is connected below, where the lower slab-shaped element (4) is located, to a framing (5 and 51; see [col 2 ln 45-50]; see figure 1) comprising:
- a bedplate (5).
Kumagai does not disclose the bedplate having a pair of uprights , parallel to each other, and a pair of crossbeams , parallel to each other, said pair of uprights being connected to the pair of crossbeams by defining a quatern of vertices
- a quatern of pivoting wheels , connectable where the quatern of vertices is located, adapted to allow for an elevation of the platform from a supporting plane and any possible displacement thereof along the supporting plane.
However, Sands teaches an analogous framing comprising a bedplate (1; see [col 2 ln 50-55]; see figure 1) for supporting an analogous mattress (see [col 2 ln 45-50]); the bedplate (1) having a pair of uprights (2 and 3; see [col 2 ln 30-35]; see figure 1), parallel to each other (see figure 1), and a pair of crossbeams (4 and 5; see [col 2 ln 30-35]; see figure 1), parallel to each other (see figure 1), said pair of uprights (2 and 3) being connected to the pair of crossbeams (4 and 5) by defining a quatern of vertices (see figure 1);
- a quatern of pivoting wheels (13; see [col 2 ln 65-70]; see figure 3), connectable where the quatern of vertices is located (see figure 1), adapted to allow for an elevation of the platform from a supporting plane (floor) and any possible displacement thereof along the supporting plane (floor; see figures 1-3) for the purpose of supporting the mattress placed on the bedplate (see [col 2 ln 45-50]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the framing as disclosed by Kumagai and to have included the pair of uprights, pair of crossbeams, and quatern of pivoting wheels as taught by Sands in order to have provided an improved framing that would add the benefit of supporting the mattress placed on the bedplate (see [col 2 ln 45-50]) and providing a means for easily adjusting a position of the postural table.
In regards to claim 11, Kumagai as now modified by Sands discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai as now modified by Sands further discloses wherein said framing (5 and 51) also comprises a quatern of elevations (51), to allow for the platform (3) to be elevated from the supporting surface (floor; see figure 1), placed between said basement (5) and said quatern of pivoting wheels (13 of Sands), each of said elevations (51) having an upper end (end attached to 5), connected to a respective vertex (see figure 1), and a lower end (unseen lower end), connected to a respective pivoting wheel (13 of Sands; see Sands figure 3 that each 13 is located on a lower end of a similar elevation 11; and thus, when included into the framing of Kumagai would be positioned on the lower ends of 51).
In regards to claim 12, Kumagai as now modified by Sands discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai as now modified by Sands does not explicitly disclose wherein said bedplate also comprises a plurality of reinforcing crossbeams to stiffen the bedplate and to enable the platform to support high loads.
However, Sands further teaches wherein said bedplate (1) also comprises a plurality of reinforcing crossbeams (9 and 10; see [col 2 ln 55-60]; see figure 1) to stiffen the bedplate (1; additional beams stiffen 1) and to enable the platform to support high loads (support any mattress of other structure is enabling the platform to support high loads) for the purpose of supporting the mattress placed on the bedplate (see [col 2 ln 45-50]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the framing as disclosed by Kumagai as now modified by Sands and to have included the plurality of reinforcing crossbeams as further taught by Sands in order to have provided an improved framing that would add the benefit of providing additional strucutres for supporting the mattress placed on the bedplate (see [col 2 ln 45-50]).
In regards to claim 13, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai does not disclose comprising movement means of said platform.
However, Sands teaches an analogous framing comprising a platform (1; see [col 2 ln 50-55]; see figure 1) for supporting an analogous mattress (see [col 2 ln 45-50]); further comprising movement means (13; see [col 2 ln 65-70]; see figure 3) of said platform (1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform as disclosed by Kumagai and to have included the quatern of pivoting wheels to function as movement means for the platform as taught by Sands in order to have provided an improved platform that would add the benefit of providing a means for easily adjusting a position of the postural table.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of Gibbons (US 2,960,986 A).
In regards to claim 14, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai does not disclose comprising heating means adapted to allow the temperature of said platform to change.
However, Gibbons teaches an analogous platform (11; see col 1 ln 60-65]; see figure 1) for the analogous purpose of supporting an individual (see [col 2 ln 1-17]); comprising heating means (16; see [col 1 ln 68-70]; see figure 1) adapted to allow the temperature of said platform (11) to change (see [col 1 ln 30-42] radiant heat allows for the temperature change of 11) for the purpose of allowing a patient on the table to receive heat treatment (see [col 2 ln 70-col 3 ln 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the platform as disclosed by Kumagai and to have included the heating means as taught by Gibbons in order to have provided an improved platform that would add the benefit of allowing a patient on the table to receive heat treatment (see [col 2 ln 70-col 3 ln 2).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai in view of White (US 2017/0216122 A1).
In regards to claim 15, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses Postural table system of the type comprising:
- a first postural table (1) made according to claim 1 (see discussion above) directed according to a first horizontal plane (see figure 1).
Kumagai does not disclose - a second postural table made according to claim 1 directed according to a vertical plane and placed adjacent to the first postural table to have a horizontal plane and a vertical plane on which parts of the patient's body rest.
However, White teaches an analogous postural table system (10; see figure 1a) comprising a first postural table (25; see [0058]; see figure 2) directed according to a first horizontal plane (see figure 2); and
a second postural table (30; see [0058]; see figure 2) which is the same as the first postural table (see figure 2) directed according to a vertical plane (see figure 2) and placed adjacent to the first postural table (25) to have a horizontal plane and a vertical plane on which parts of the patient's body rest (see figure 2 and 4) for the purpose of allowing for different parts of a patient's body to be positioned and supported in different planes (see [0060]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the postural table system as disclosed by Kumagai and to have included the second postural table directed according to a vertical plane as taught by White in order to have provided an improved postural table system that would add the benefit of allowing for different parts of a patient's body to be positioned and supported in different planes (see [0060]).
Furthermore, such a modification to include a second postural table which is the same as the first postural table is held to be obvious since it has been held that “a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In the instant case, providing additional postural tables provides the expected result of allowing the postural table system to supporting the patient’s body.
In regards to claim 16, Kumagai discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kumagai further discloses Postural table system of the type comprising:
- a first postural table (1) made according to claim 1 (see discussion above) directed according to a first horizontal plane (see figure 1).
Kumagai does not disclose a second postural table made according to claim 1 directed according to a second horizontal plane and placed adjacent to the first postural table, said second horizontal plane being coplanar to the first horizontal plane to define an extension of the first horizontal plane acting as an extension of the working plane defined by the first horizontal plane.
However, White teaches an analogous postural table system (10; see figure 1a) comprising a first postural table (25; see [0058]; see figure 2) directed according to a first horizontal plane (see figure 2); and
a second postural table (30; see [0058]; see figure 2) which is the same as the first postural table (see figure 2) directed according to a second horizontal plane and placed adjacent to the first postural table (25; see figure 1a), said second horizontal plane being coplanar to the first horizontal plane to define an extension of the first horizontal plane acting as an extension of the working plane defined by the first horizontal plane (See figure 1a) for the purpose of providing two postural tables that can be adjusted relative to one another allowing for different parts of a patient's body to be positioned and supported in different planes (see [0058] and [0060]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the postural table system as disclosed by Kumagai and to have included the second postural table directed according to a second horizontal plane coplanar with the first horizontal plane as taught by White in order to have provided an improved postural table system that would add the benefit of providing two postural tables that can be adjusted relative to one another allowing for different parts of a patient's body to be positioned and supported in different planes (see [0058] and [0060]).
Furthermore, such a modification to include a second postural table which is the same as the first postural table is held to be obvious since it has been held that “a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In the instant case, providing additional postural tables provides the expected result of allowing the postural table system to supporting the patient’s body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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 at 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 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786