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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on July 21, 2026, is acknowledged. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments filed July 21, 2026, all claims encompass the elected species and are therefore examined on the merits.
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.
Claim(s) 2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stango et al. (US 2016/0081633; hereinafter Stango) in view of Barbarisi (US 4943986).
Regarding claim 2, Stango discloses a breast compression paddle (figs. 15a-15c) comprising: a bottom wall (162) configured to act as a compression surface for a breast (10), the bottom wall having a front end and an opposite rear end (of 162); a bracket (back part of 160) extending from the rear end of the bottom wall (162) and configured to secure the breast compression paddle to an imaging system (figs. 7-9); left and right side walls (164) extending in an upward direction from the bottom wall (162); and a front wall (170) extending in the upward direction from the front end of the bottom wall (162) and between the left and right side walls (164), the front wall having a front surface configured to contact a chest wall (fig. 1), wherein the front wall (170) has a lower interface that connects to the front end of the bottom wall (162) and an upper edge positioned above the lower interface (of 170), a front wall height is defined between the lower interface and the upper edge (of 170).
However, Stango fails to disclose wherein the front wall defines a recess, the recess having a width that is less than a total width of the front wall between the left and right side walls, and the recess extending the entire front wall height between the lower interface and the upper edge.
Barbarisi teaches wherein the front wall (48) defines a recess (55), the recess having a width (between the edges of 48 adjacent to 46/47) that is less than a total width (between 46 and 48) of the front wall between the left and right side walls (46/48), and the recess (55) extending the entire front wall height between the lower interface and the upper edge (of 48).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Stango with the teaching of Barbarisi, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 3, Barbarisi teaches wherein the width of the recess has an upper width defined along the upper edge of the front wall and a lower width defined along the lower interface, and wherein the upper width is different than the lower width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
Regarding claim 4, Barbarisi teaches wherein the lower width is greater than the upper width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
Regarding claim 5, Barbarisi teaches wherein the upper width is between about 35-80 percent of the lower width (figs. 1 and 12).
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with about 35-80 percent, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges or values involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 6, Stango as modified above suggests claim 3. Barbarisi further teaches wherein the upper width is a percentage of the lower width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
However, Stango fails to disclose about 45-60 percent.
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with about 45-60 percent, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges or values involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 7, Stango as modified above suggests claim 3. Barbarisi further teaches wherein the upper width is a percentage of the lower width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
However, Stango fails to disclose about 50 percent.
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with about 50 percent, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges or values involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 8, Barbarisi teaches wherein the recess is defined by a curved wall (55) that is at a different angle than the front wall (48).
Regarding claim 9, Stango discloses a transition wall (172) connecting the rear end of the bottom wall (162) to the bracket (of 160) such that the bracket is positioned above the bottom wall (162), the transition wall (172) defining an open access area of the breast compression paddle.
Regarding claim 10, Stango as modified above suggests claim 2.
However, Stango fails to disclose wherein the bottom wall is substantially planar in this embodiment.
Stango teaches wherein the bottom wall is substantially planar (106; par. 49) in another embodiment.
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Stango with the other embodiment, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Stango: par. 49). One would have been motivated to make such a modification for better holding the breast in place (Stango: par. 49).
Regarding claim 11, Stango discloses wherein the bottom wall is curved (162).
Regarding claim 12, Stango discloses a breast compression paddle (figs. 15a-15c) comprising: a bottom wall (162) configured to act as a compression surface for a breast (10), the bottom wall having a front end and an opposite rear end (of 162); a bracket (back part of 160) extending from the rear end of the bottom wall (162) and configured to secure the breast compression paddle to an imaging system (figs. 7-9); left and right side walls (164) extending in an upward direction from the bottom wall (162); and a front wall (170) extending in the upward direction from the front end of the bottom wall (162) and between the left and right side walls (164), the front wall having a front surface configured to contact a chest wall (fig. 1), wherein the front wall (170) has a first width defined between the left and right side walls (164).
However, Stango fails to disclose wherein a recess is integrated within the front wall and has a second width that is less than the first width of the front wall, the recess matching a front wall height of the front wall.
Barbarisi teaches wherein a recess (55) is integrated within the front wall (48) and has a second width (between the edges of 48 adjacent to 46/47) that is less than the first width (between 46 and 48) of the front wall, the recess (55) matching a front wall height of the front wall (48).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Stango with the teaching of Barbarisi, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 13, Barbarisi teaches wherein the second width of the recess has an upper width and a lower width, wherein the upper width is different than the lower width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
Regarding claim 14, Barbarisi teaches wherein the lower width is greater than the upper width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
Regarding claim 15, Stango as modified above suggests claim 13. Barbarisi further teaches wherein the upper width is a percentage of the lower width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
However, Stango fails to disclose about 45-60 percent.
It also would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the prior art with about 45-60 percent, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges or values involves only routine skill in the art. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 16, Barbarisi teaches wherein the recess (55) is disposed at an angle relative to the front wall (48).
Regarding claim 17, Stango discloses a transition wall (172) connecting the rear end of the bottom wall (162) to the bracket (of 160) such that the bracket is positioned above the bottom wall (162), the transition wall (172) defining an open access area of the breast compression paddle.
Regarding claim 18, Stango discloses an imaging system (fig. 1) comprising: an x-ray source (24); a breast platform (12) configured to support a breast (10) of a patient; an x-ray detector (26) disposed within the breast platform (12); and a compression paddle (16) disposed between the x-ray source (24) and the breast platform (12), the compression paddle (figs. 15a-15c) comprising: a bottom wall (162) configured to act as a compression surface for the breast (10), the bottom wall having a front end and an opposite rear end (of 162); a bracket (back part of 160) extending from the rear end of the bottom wall (162) and configured to secure the breast compression paddle to the imaging system (figs. 7-9); left and right side walls (164) extending in an upward direction from the bottom wall; and a front wall (170) extending in the upward direction from the front end of the bottom wall (16+2) and between the left and right side walls (164), the front wall configured to contact a chest wall (fig. 1), wherein the front wall (170) has a first width defined between the left and right side walls (164).
However, Stango fails to disclose wherein a recess is integrated within the front wall and has a second width that is less than the first width of the front wall, the recess matching a front wall height of the front wall.
Barbarisi teaches wherein a recess (55) is integrated within the front wall (48) and has a second width (between the edges of 48 adjacent to 46/47) that is less than the first width (between 46 and 48) of the front wall, the recess (55) matching a front wall height of the front wall (48).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Stango with the teaching of Barbarisi, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for a better fit (Barbarisi: col. 4:37-49).
Regarding claim 19, Stango discloses focusing (top of 170) to the x-ray source (fig. 1:24). Barbarisi teaches the recess (55).
Regarding claim 20, Barbarisi teaches wherein the second width of the recess has an upper width and a lower width, and wherein the upper width different than the lower width (figs. 1, 4, or 12).
Regarding claim 21, Stango discloses a transition wall (172) connecting the rear end of the bottom wall (162) to the bracket (of 160) such that the bracket is positioned above the bottom wall (162), the transition wall (172) defining an open access area of the breast compression paddle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached on (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights