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 .
Specification
Amendment to the specification filed 5/29/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For clarity, please make the following changes:
Claim 1, line 11 insert “the support assembly” before “capable of translating”
Claim 1, line 28 insert “the second ball screw module” before “connected to”
Claim 1, line 31, insert “the third ball screw module” before “connected to”
Claim 1, line 36, insert “the self-rotating clamping assembly” before “used for”
Claim 1, line 37, insert “and” before “driving”
Claim 4, line 11, insert “the drive output shaft” before “driving”
Claim 5, line 2, “adopts” should be changed to “comprises” for clarity purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 limitations:
“the pelvic fracture block” in lines 7-8
“the bedside rails” and “the operating table” in line 10
“the upper end of the column” in lines 18-19
“the upper end of the upper support arm” in line 21
“the arc rack guide rail plane” in lines 23-24
“the base plane” in line 24
“the sliding platform” in line 25
“the lower support plate” in line 31
“the sliding platform’ in line 31-32
“the holding screw” in line 36
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as “a” [component] instead of “the” [component].
Claim 1, line 15 recite “a frame-like closed structure”. It is unclear what the scope of the term “frame-like closed” encompasses as a frame is a typically open and accessible structure made from struts in the field of fracture fixators. The use of the term “-like” further adds to the confusion surrounding the scope of the term as it is unclear what characteristics of a frame are required for structure to be considered “frame-like”. The scope of this limitation cannot be ascertained.
Claim 1, line 23 refers to “the short axis direction of the bed”. However, it is unclear if this is referring the short axis in a 2D consideration (i.e. the width of the bed in a horizontal plane) or in a 3D consideration (i.e. the thickness of the bed in a vertical plane). Therefore the claim limitation is indefinite.
Claim 1, lines 23-25 recite “[an] arc rack guide rail plane of the arc guide rail module is parallel to [a] base plane of [a] first ball screw module and located in front of it” (emphasis added). It is unclear if “it” is referring to the base plane or the first ball screw module thereby rendering the scope indefinite.
Claim 1, line 33 refers to “the ball screw module” however three different ball screw modules had previously been introduced in the claim and it is unclear if lien 33 is referring to the first, second, third or a combination of ball screw modules thereby rendering the scope indefinite.
Claim 1 recites singular limitations of “bedside rail” in lines 11, 16, 49, however the structure was initially presented as a plural “bedside rails” in line 10. It is unclear if this a typo and the singular ‘rail’ should be interpreted as a plural or if applicant is intending to claim only one of the plurality of rails, therefore the scope is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
"the locking handwheel" in lines 6-7
“the trapezoidal slot” in lines 7-8
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as “a” [component] instead of “the” [component].
Claim 3 refers to “the column locking module” in line 2 and “the support column” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether they should be interpreted as “a” module/column or if the dependency of claim 3 has a typographical error and should be dependent on claim 2 which provides proper antecedent basis for these terms. For examination purposes, claim 3 will be interpreted as dependent from claim 2.
Claim 4 refers to “the support column” in lines 6 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether this is reference to “the column of the support assembly” recited in claim 1, lines 18-19 or if the dependency of claim 4 has a typographical error and should be dependent on claim 2 which provides proper antecedent basis for “a support column”. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be interpreted as dependent from claim 2.
Claim 4, line 8-9 recites “, used for supporting and fixing….” It is unclear what structure is “used for supporting and fixing” because many elements are previously recited and the claim does not make clear if it is the upper support arm, the other end of the lower support arm or another element.
Claim 4, line 15 recites “, used for auxiliary support and locking….” It is unclear what structure is “used for auxiliary support and locking” because many elements are previously recited and the claim does not make clear if it is the ends of the support rod or support rod sliding seat or support rod hinge seat, or another element.
Claim 4 recites the limitations:
“the outer side” in line 10
“the healthy side” in line 17
“the locking handwheel” in line 18
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as “a” [component] instead of “the” [component].
Claim 5 refers to “the ball screw module” in line 2. However there were three different ball screw modules recited in claim 1 making the scope indefinite as to which module(s) are being limited.
Claim 5 recites “third angular contact ball bearings” in lines 3-4. However there had been no previous recitation of first or second angular contact ball bearings thereby introducing ambiguity as to whether “third” carries any weight to the limitation (i.e. are there required to be three bearings?) or is purely a naming convention. Therefore the scope is indefinite.
Claim 5, line 4 refers to “the module end face”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and it is also unclear which module has the end face because there are many different modules in the scope of claim 5 (including claim 1). For example, a synchronous rotation module, a first ball screw module, a second ball screw module, a third ball screw module, and an arc guide rail module, etc. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claims 6-10 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors in the same way as has been identified for claims 1-5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE T JOHANAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:00-5:00.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JACQUELINE T JOHANAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights