Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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) 1-13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0346909 A1 (BRUNI et al.).
With respect to claim 1, Bruni teaches a patient support system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a base (2, 3; Fig. 1-6; para [0038]) defining a center axis (center axis V extending longitudinally through 2, 3; Fig. 1; para [0038]); a seat portion coupled to the base (1; Fig. 1-6; para [0038]-[0039]); a board (6; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]) coupled to the base (6 coupled via 7a; Fig. 1-6; para [0047]); the board includes a first surface facing towards the center axis (surface of 6 upon which person O is in contact; Fig. 1-6; para [0040]) and a second surface opposite the first surface (surface of 6 opposite surface upon which person o is in contact; Fig. 1-6; para [0040]); wherein the first surface of the board is configured to engage a front of a patient (surface of 6 upon which front of person o is in contact; Fig. 1-6; para [0040]: intended use, note configured to engage a front of a patient comprises intended use).
With respect to claim 2, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the board includes an aperture configured to receive at least a portion of a head of the patient (10; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 3, Bruni teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the aperture is positioned in an end portion of the board (positioning of 10 in end of 6; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 4, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the board includes a first wing portion configured to at least partially support a first arm of the patient (leftmost instance of 9; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]), and wherein the board includes a second wing portion configured to at least partially support a second arm of the patient (rightmost instance of 9; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 5, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein an angle is defined between the board and the center axis (angle alpha; Fig. 1; para [0040]), and
wherein the angle is within a range of 5 degrees to 45 degrees (desired angle alpha-1 about 10-15 degrees; Fig. 1; para [0040]).
With respect to claim 6, Bruni teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the angle is adjustable (angle alpha adjustable via 5; Fig. 1; para [0040]).
With respect to claim 7, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first surface of the board has a first dimension in an end portion (width of 6 at end upon which 10 is disposed; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]), and a second dimension in a narrow portion (narrow portion of 6 directly above instances of 9; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]), the second dimension smaller than the first dimension (narrow portion of 6 directly above instances of 9 narrower than width of 6 at end upon which 10 is disposed; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 8, Bruni teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the end portion includes an aperture (10; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 9, Bruni teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the first surface of the board has a third dimension in a flared portion (width across from end to end of instances of 9; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]), the third dimension larger than the first dimension (width across from end to end of instances of 9 greater than width of 6 at end upon
which 10 is disposed; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 10, Bruni teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the narrow portion is positioned between the end portion and the flared portion (narrow portion of 6 directly above instances of 9 disposed between width of 6 at end upon which 10 is disposed and width across from end to end of instances of 9; Fig. 1-6; para [0041]).
With respect to claim 11, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the base is rotatable about the center axis (2, 3 horizontally rotatable around v; Fig. 1-6; para [0052]).
With respect to claim 12, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the base is movable along the center axis (2, 3 vertically adjustable by calibration vertical piston; Fig. 1-6; para [0050]).
With respect to claim 13, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the center axis is vertical (vertical center axis V; Fig. 1-6; para [0040]).
With respect to claim 16, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a shell coupled to the board and configured to support a lower back of a patient (central portion of 6a bounded by instances of 9; Fig. 1-6; para [0038]-[0040]: note configured to support a lower back of a patient comprises intended use).
With respect to claim 20, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the patient is less than 60 inches tall (intended use, Figs. 1-6, para[0040]: the patient support is considered capable of supporting patients less than 60 inches tall, such as shorter adults and children).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bruni in view of US 4,347,213 A to ROGERS, JR. (hereinafter Rogers).
With respect to claim 14, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent wherein further comprising a vacuum-formed bag. However, Rogers teaches a patient support system (Fig. 4; col 4 In 50-68), comprising: a vacuum-formed bag (18; Fig. 4; col 4 In 65 to col 5 In 13). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus
to have employed the vacuum bag of Rogers upon the system of Bruni, in order to effectively and customizable support a user during a procedure and prevent movement.
With respect to claim 15, Bruni in view of Rogers teaches the system of claim 14, and Rogers further discloses wherein the vacuum-formed bag is positioned on the seat portion (18 disposed upon seat of 10; Fig. 4; col 4 ln 50 to col 5 ln 13).
Claims 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruni in view of US 2002/0048089 A1 to BROWN (hereinafter Brown).
With respect to claim 17, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent wherein further comprising an attention capturing component. However, Brown teaches a system (Fig. 1A-2A; para [0028]-[0029]), comprising: an attention capturing component (16; Fig. 1A-2A; para [0028]-[0029]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus to have employed the attention capturing component of Brown upon the system of Bruni, in order to divert a user's attention from a medical procedure and reduce perceived pain.
With respect to claim 18, Bruni in view of Brown teaches the system of claim 17, and Brown further discloses wherein the attention capturing component is a video display (video display 10; Fig. 2A; para [0028]).
Claims 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruni in view of US 2006/0272651 A1 to ORTEL (hereinafter Ortel).
With respect to claim 17, Bruni teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent wherein further comprising an attention capturing component. However, Ortel teaches a system (Fig. 1; para [0018]), comprising: an attention capturing component (diversionary toy 28; Fig. 1; para [0020]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus to have employed the attention capturing component of Ortel upon the system of Bruni, in order to divert a user's attention from a medical procedure and reduce perceived pain.
With respect to claim 19, Bruni in view of Ortel teaches the system of claim 18, and Ortel further discloses wherein the attention capturing component is a toy (diversionary toy 28; Fig. 1; para [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARLA R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3143. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-2:30PM.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/TARLA R PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights