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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Claims 1, 6, 11, 14, and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094). The rejection has been addressed in the claims. The Fuchs reference teaches positioning a patient in a gantry (see Abstract, FIGs. 1-3). The gantry is made up of at least three support sections to support the main body of a person in both a seated position and lying position (212-214) (four are shown in FIG. 1, 211-214) that can move the patient from a seated to flat position (see Fig. 2). It is noted that a separate head support is not shown or described in Fuchs and is not considered a support part. To make the transition, at least three segments are required and shown in the other figures and in the description. Fuchs cannot operate without at least three support sections. Jackson was combined with Fuchs for the radio-lucent hinge.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the reinterpretation of parts of Fuchs based on the amended claims dated 3 December 2025. See the rejections and annotated Fig. 5 of Fuchs below.
The Applicant argues “Applicant claims two sections of a table, not a gantry. Each section is coupled to the other by a hinge. The advantage over Fuchs/Jackson combination is fewer moving parts to break, fewer pieces to manufacture that reduce cost, and reduce reliance on a portable air supply as the Applicant's table is designed to work in a room rather than be moved around the hospital. Further, it is impossible for the teachings of Fuchs/Jackson to place a patient in the same position as Applicant's table claimed in claims 1 and 11, as a "V" position with the patient on their stomach is unattainable. In Fuchs, the airbag is placed under the hinged leg joint, and the movement of the joint under the patient's butt only moves down and not up (see Fig. 5). Applicant's invention requires the airbag to be below the joint created by coupling the two support portions.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the required fewer parts and the “V” position) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, lines 1-2, the phrase “the third support member composed of” should be changed to read - - the third support member is composed of- -;
In claim 11, line 2, the phrase “placing a first pneumatic bag placed under” should be changed to read - - placing a first pneumatic bag under - -;
In claim 11, line 7, the phrase “moving at least a first support member” should be changed to read - - moving at least the first support member - -;
In claim 20, line 2, the phrase “engaging a value on a manifold” should be changed to read - - engaging a valve on a manifold - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments to claim 1, dated 25 July 2025 include “a first support part hinged-end and first unhinged-end parallel to the first support part hinged-end; a second support part with a second support part hinged-end and second unhinged-end parallel to the second support hinged-end flexibly coupled at a joint to the first support part at the first support part hinged-end, and a first pneumatic bag that when inflated results in at least the first support part being in a raised position and the first pneumatic bag is positioned below the joint.
There is no mention in the original disclosure of “unhinged ends” of the first and second support parts. Figure 27C appears to show ends which are not hinged however, claim 1 also requires that the first pneumatic bag when inflated results in at least the first support part being in a raised position and the first pneumatic bag is positioned below the joint. However, as shown in Fig. 25, when the pneumatic bag that is positioned beneath the joint is inflated the ends of support sections 2514 and 2516 are hinged in slots 2618. Therefore the Examiner considers the new limitations to introduce new matter.
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 11 and 13-20 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 11 includes the limitations “a first pneumatic bag placed under a first support member” “the first pneumatic bag, under a joint formed by the coupling of the first and second support member” and “moving at least a first support member in an upward movement relative to the third support member in response to the inflating of the first pneumatic bag.” It is unclear if the first pneumatic bag is positioned beneath both the first pneumatic bag and the joint based on the claim or if the newly added “first pneumatic bag is referencing a different pneumatic bag that is located under the joint. For purpose of compact prosecution the Examiner considers the newly added recitation of the pneumatic bag being positioned under the joint to be the same as the first recitation and interprets the term “under the joint” to mean on a lower level or lower horizontal plane than the joint but not necessarily directly vertically aligned with the joint but clarification of the location/function of the bag is requested.
Claims 13-20 depend on claim 11 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) accordingly.
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) 1, 6, 11, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094).
Regarding Claim 1: Fuchs discloses a surgical table top (patient positioning device of Fig. 5 of Fuchs), comprising: a first support part (the first support section formed of section 211 and 212 of Fuchs) with a first support part hinged-end (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs) and first unhinged-end (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs) parallel to the first support part hinged-end (see parallel ends shown in the lowered position when the patient is lying flat – Fig. 5 of Fuchs); a second support part with a second support part hinged-end (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs) and second unhinged-end (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs) parallel to the second support hinged-end (see parallel ends shown in the lowered position when the patient is lying flat – Fig. 5 of Fuchs) flexibly coupled at a joint (see joint 232 of Fuchs – Fig. 5); to the first support part at the first support part hinged-end (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs) and a first pneumatic bag (gas pillows or cushion 2523 of Fuchs – Fig. 5) that when inflated results in at least the first support part being in a raised position (see the annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs showing a raised position of the first support part since both halves of the first support part have raised portions compared to the flat lying figure of Fig. 5 of Fuchs) and the first pneumatic bag is positioned below the joint (see 2523 positioned below the joint 232 of Fuchs).
PNG
media_image1.png
271
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fuchs does not disclose where the first support part, second support part, and joint are radiolucent but does disclose that the patient positioning device is for positioning a patient in a gantry and that gantries can include X-ray sources (see at least the first and second paragraphs of page 2 of the English translation of Fuchs).
In the same field of endeavor, patient positioning devices for surgery and imaging (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0003] of Jackson which teaches “Such patient transfers for imaging purposes may be avoided by employing radiolucent and other imaging compatible patient support systems”), Jackson teaches a patient positioning device (see the abstract of Jackson), comprising: a first support part (frame section 12 of Jackson – Fig. 3) and a second support part (frame section 14 of Jackson – Fig. 3) with a second support part middle-end (end of frame section 14 which includes inner member 78 of Jackson – Fig. 3 and paragraph [0098]) flexibly coupled together at a joint to the first support part (see hinge 70 formed with members 76 and 78 of Jackson as shown allowing an articulation between frame sections in Figs. 18-20 and discussed in paragraph [0098] which teaches “With particular reference to FIGS. 3, 7 and 9-11, the hinge mechanism 70 includes an outer member 76 and an inner member 78. The outer member 76 is fixed or may be integral with the elongate frame member 66, while the inner member 78 is integral or otherwise fixed to the frame member 66'”) where the first support part, second support part (see at least paragraph [0104] of Jackson which teaches “Furthermore, with respect to FIGS. 13 and 14, the frame member sections 66 and 68 of section 12 and the frame member sections 66' and 68' of the section 14 may be replaced with substantially rectangular radiolucent imaging tops or sections 100 and 101' respectively”), and joint are radiolucent (see at least paragraph [0097] of Jackson which teaches “The frame 14 further includes frame members 66' and 68' that are each fixed to the end connector 58'. The frame members 66' and 68' are pivotally or hingedly connected to respective frame members 66 and 68 by the hinge assembly 16. Specifically, the frame member 66 is attached to the frame member 66' by the hinge mechanism 70 and the frame member 68 is attached to the frame member 68' by the hinge mechanism 72, which, again, are preferably radiolucent.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine Fuchs (directed to a patient positioning device for an imaging device) and Jackson (directed to a patient positioning device which is comprised of radiolucent materials for a surgical device used with imaging devices) and arrived at a patient positioning device capable of positioning different parts of the body which device is radiolucent for imaging.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because patient transfers for imaging purposes may be avoided by employing radiolucent and other imaging compatible patient support systems” (see paragraph [0003] of Jackson).
Regarding Claim 6: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the surgical table top of claim 1, includes a second pneumatic bag (pillow 2512 of Fuchs) placed under the first support part that is raised independently of the second support part when the second pneumatic bag is inflated (see at least Fig. 5 of Fuchs which shows the pillows 2513, 2512, and 2511 positioned under the first support part which is raised with inflation of the pillows; also see the abstract of Fuchs which states that the sections 211, 212, 213 are tilted relative to one another about at least one axis; each section is operated with different airbag assemblies and there are no mechanical linkages connecting sections).
Regarding Claim 11: Fuchs discloses a method for positioning a surgical table top (patient positioning device of Fuchs), comprising: placing a first pneumatic bag (gas pillows or cushion 2513 of Fuchs – Fig. 5) placed under a first support member (see at least Fig. 5 and the second paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs which discusses the inflation of pillows or cushion 2513 to cause raising of the section 211) that is only movably coupled to a second support member (see first support member formed of 211 and 212 coupled to second support section 213 of Fuchs - Fig. 5) and the first support member (the first support member formed of section 211 and 212 of Fuchs) and second support member (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs), along with the first pneumatic bag, under a joint formed by the coupling of the first support member and the second support member (see annotated copy of Fig. 5 of Fuchs and note that the Examiner interprets “under a joint” to mean on a lower level or lower horizontal plane than the joint but not necessarily directly vertically aligned with the joint), is further supported by a third support member (support 24 of Fuchs – Fig. 5); inflating the first pneumatic bag (see at least the last paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs which discloses “In the figure below right is shown as by reducing the volume of the gas container 254 Gas in the pillows or cushions 2511 . 2512 . 2513 and 2521 . 2522 and 2523 is pressed, and so the patient is brought from a lying position to a semi-sitting position. In this case, a motor may be provided (not shown in the figure), by means of which on the container 254 Pressure is applied so that the gas is pumped into the cushions”); and moving at least a first support member in an upward movement relative to the third support member in response to the inflating of the first pneumatic bag (see at least Fig. 5 and the last paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs which discloses “In the figure below right is shown as by reducing the volume of the gas container 254 Gas in the pillows or cushions 2511 . 2512 . 2513 and 2521 . 2522 and 2523 is pressed, and so the patient is brought from a lying position to a semi-sitting position. In this case, a motor may be provided (not shown in the figure), by means of which on the container 254 Pressure is applied so that the gas is pumped into the cushions”), wherein the first support member is coupled to the second support member (see joint 231 connecting members 211 and 212 of Fuchs).
Fuchs does not disclose wherein the first support member, second support member, and first pneumatic bag and joint are radiolucent.
In the same field of endeavor, patient positioning devices for surgery and imaging (see at least the abstract and paragraph [0003] of Jackson which teaches “Such patient transfers for imaging purposes may be avoided by employing radiolucent and other imaging compatible patient support systems”), Jackson teaches a method for positioning a surgical table top (see the abstract of Jackson), comprising: a first support part (frame section 12 of Jackson – Fig. 3) and a second support part (frame section 14 of Jackson – Fig. 3) flexibly coupled together at a joint to the first support part (see hinge 70 formed with members 76 and 78 of Jackson as shown allowing an articulation between frame sections in Figs. 18-20 and discussed in paragraph [0098] which teaches “With particular reference to FIGS. 3, 7 and 9-11, the hinge mechanism 70 includes an outer member 76 and an inner member 78. The outer member 76 is fixed or may be integral with the elongate frame member 66, while the inner member 78 is integral or otherwise fixed to the frame member 66'”) where the first support part, second support part (see at least paragraph [0104] of Jackson which teaches “Furthermore, with respect to FIGS. 13 and 14, the frame member sections 66 and 68 of section 12 and the frame member sections 66' and 68' of the section 14 may be replaced with substantially rectangular radiolucent imaging tops or sections 100 and 101' respectively”), and joint are radiolucent (see at least paragraph [0097] of Jackson which teaches “The frame 14 further includes frame members 66' and 68' that are each fixed to the end connector 58'. The frame members 66' and 68' are pivotally or hingedly connected to respective frame members 66 and 68 by the hinge assembly 16. Specifically, the frame member 66 is attached to the frame member 66' by the hinge mechanism 70 and the frame member 68 is attached to the frame member 68' by the hinge mechanism 72, which, again, are preferably radiolucent.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine Fuchs (directed to a patient positioning device for an imaging device) and Jackson (directed to a patient positioning device which is comprised of radiolucent materials for a surgical device used with imaging devices) and arrived at a method for positioning a surgical table top including positioning different parts of the body with a radiolucent device for clear imaging.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because patient transfers for imaging purposes may be avoided by employing radiolucent and other imaging compatible patient support systems” (see paragraph [0003] of Jackson).
Regarding Claim 14: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 11, includes placing a second pneumatic bag under the first support member (see at least cushion 251 which comprises pillow or cushion 2512 which is beneath the first support member 211 of Fuchs – see Fig. 5 and also the last paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs); and inflating the second pneumatic bag to move the first support member when the first pneumatic bag is in a deflated state (see at least Fig. 5 of Fuchs which shows pillow 2512 inflating while 2513 is deflated and the last paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs which discloses “The patient support shown in the left three images is part of a patient transport device which contains an air or gas filled container 254 includes. From this container lead gas pipes 255 and 253 to the pillows 251 respectively. 252 , These lines each include a valve 2552 respectively. 2532 for controlling the gas inlet into the individual chambers of the cushions 251 and 252 , each with individual lines 2551 respectively. 2513 with the valves 2552 respectively. 2532 are connected. The adjustment of the valves 2552 and 2532 For example, it is made such that the individual chambers of the pillows fill one after the other so as to realize a more controlled tilting. In the figure below right is shown as by reducing the volume of the gas container 254 Gas in the pillows or cushions 2511 . 2512 . 2513 and 2521 . 2522 and 2523 is pressed, and so the patient is brought from a lying position to a semi-sitting position.”).
Regarding Claim 17: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 11, includes placing a third pneumatic bag (pillow 252 of Fuchs – Fig. 5) under the second support member (see Fig. 5 of Fuchs showing the pillow 252 under section 212); and Inflating the third pneumatic bag to move the second support member (see Fig. 5 of Fuchs) when the first pneumatic bag is in a deflated state (see at least the last paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs and Fig. 5 of Fuchs which shows the inflation order of the chambers and a configuration with the first pneumatic bag which the examiner considers 2513 to be deflated and the entire pillow 252 is inflated).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094) further in view of Coppens et al. (US PG Publication 2014/0121497 – hereinafter Coppens).
Regarding Claim 3: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the surgical table top of claim 1. Fuchs and Jackson do not disclose where the first support part and second support part are made from radiolucent laminar sheeting.
In the same field of endeavor, patient positioning devices for imaging (see at least the abstract of Coppens), Coppens teaches a patient positioning device (see the abstract of Coppens), comprising: support parts formed of radiolucent laminar sheeting (see at least paragraphs [0014]-[0016] of Coppens which describes different configurations of laminated structure formed with radiolucent sheets and forming a radiolucent structure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine Fuchs (directed to a patient positioning device for an imaging device) and Jackson (directed to a patient positioning device which is comprised of radiolucent materials for a surgical device used with imaging devices) and Coppens (directed to a patient positioning device for imaging formed of radiolucent laminar sheeting) and arrived at a surgical table top of claim 1, where the first support part and second support part are made from radiolucent laminar sheeting.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Coppens teaches “These elements are arranged in such a way that the structure can be used in modalities such as Magnetic Resonance imaging where carbon fibers typically cannot be used due to image distortion and localized heating. At the same time, the structures are designed to maintain radiolucency that is significantly homogeneous” (see the abstract of Coppens).
Regarding Claim 13: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 11, but do not disclose or make obvious wherein the first support member and second support member are made from radiolucent laminar sheets.
In the same field of endeavor, patient positioning devices for imaging (see at least the abstract of Coppens), Coppens teaches a patient positioning device (see the abstract of Coppens), comprising: support parts formed of radiolucent laminar sheeting (see at least paragraphs [0014]-[0016] of Coppens which describes different configurations of laminated structure formed with radiolucent sheets and forming a radiolucent structure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine Fuchs (directed to a patient positioning device for an imaging device) and Jackson (directed to a patient positioning device which is comprised of radiolucent materials for a surgical device used with imaging devices) and Coppens (directed to a patient positioning device for imaging formed of radiolucent laminar sheeting) and arrived at a method of operating a surgical table top of claim 11, where the method includes the first support part and second support part are made from radiolucent laminar sheeting.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Coppens teaches “These elements are arranged in such a way that the structure can be used in modalities such as Magnetic Resonance imaging where carbon fibers typically cannot be used due to image distortion and localized heating. At the same time, the structures are designed to maintain radiolucency that is significantly homogeneous” (see the abstract of Coppens).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094) further in view of Patton et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2011/0200177 – hereinafter Patton).
Regarding Claim 4: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the surgical table top of claim 1, but do not disclose where the first pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag.
In the same field of endeavor, patient support devices for use in imaging (see the abstract of Patton), Patton teaches a pneumatic bag (inflatable air bladder 80 of Patton) for lifting a person for imaging (see the abstract of Patton), where the pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag (see at least paragraph [0036] of Patton which teaches “[0036] According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a material that is substantially radiolucent so that head support 10 will no adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device. According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a polyethylene terephthalate (PTPE) plastic or rubber material. According to the various alternative embodiments, inflatable bladder 80 may be formed of any other suitable radiolucent material. Further, according to the embodiment illustrated, a cover, also formed of a substantially radiolucent material at least partially encloses inflatable bladder 80. The cover protects inflatable bladder 80 and may also provide a surface or structure for coupling adjust device 16 to base portion 14.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Patton (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient for imaging comprising a radiolucent bladder for lifting) and arrived at a surgical table top according to claim 1 where the first pneumatic bag is radiolucent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because positioning the patient with an inflatable bladder which is radiolucent will “no[t] adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device” (see paragraph [0036] of Patton).
Regarding Claim 7: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the surgical table top of claim 6. Fuchs and Jackson do not disclose or make obvious where the second pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag.
In the same field of endeavor, patient support devices for use in imaging (see the abstract of Patton), Patton teaches a pneumatic bag (inflatable air bladder 80 of Patton) for lifting a person for imaging (see the abstract of Patton), where the pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag (see at least paragraph [0036] of Patton which teaches “[0036] According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a material that is substantially radiolucent so that head support 10 will no adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device. According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a polyethylene terephthalate (PTPE) plastic or rubber material. According to the various alternative embodiments, inflatable bladder 80 may be formed of any other suitable radiolucent material. Further, according to the embodiment illustrated, a cover, also formed of a substantially radiolucent material at least partially encloses inflatable bladder 80. The cover protects inflatable bladder 80 and may also provide a surface or structure for coupling adjust device 16 to base portion 14.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Patton (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient for imaging comprising a radiolucent bladder for lifting) and arrived at a surgical table top according to claim 6 where the second pneumatic bag is radiolucent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because positioning the patient with an inflatable bladder which is radiolucent will “no[t] adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device” (see paragraph [0036] of Patton).
Regarding Claim 15: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 14, but do not disclose wherein the second pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag.
In the same field of endeavor, patient support devices for use in imaging (see the abstract of Patton), Patton teaches a pneumatic bag (inflatable air bladder 80 of Patton) for lifting a person for imaging (see the abstract of Patton), where the pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag (see at least paragraph [0036] of Patton which teaches “[0036] According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a material that is substantially radiolucent so that head support 10 will no adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device. According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a polyethylene terephthalate (PTPE) plastic or rubber material. According to the various alternative embodiments, inflatable bladder 80 may be formed of any other suitable radiolucent material. Further, according to the embodiment illustrated, a cover, also formed of a substantially radiolucent material at least partially encloses inflatable bladder 80. The cover protects inflatable bladder 80 and may also provide a surface or structure for coupling adjust device 16 to base portion 14.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Patton (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient for imaging comprising a radiolucent bladder for lifting) and arrived at a method of positioning a surgical table top according to claim 14 where the second pneumatic bag is radiolucent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because positioning the patient with an inflatable bladder which is radiolucent will “no[t] adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device” (see paragraph [0036] of Patton).
Regarding Claim 18: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 17, but do not disclose where the third pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag.
In the same field of endeavor, patient support devices for use in imaging (see the abstract of Patton), Patton teaches a pneumatic bag (inflatable air bladder 80 of Patton) for lifting a person for imaging (see the abstract of Patton), where the pneumatic bag is a radiolucent pneumatic bag (see at least paragraph [0036] of Patton which teaches “[0036] According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a material that is substantially radiolucent so that head support 10 will no adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device. According to an exemplary embodiment, inflatable bladder 80 is formed of a polyethylene terephthalate (PTPE) plastic or rubber material. According to the various alternative embodiments, inflatable bladder 80 may be formed of any other suitable radiolucent material. Further, according to the embodiment illustrated, a cover, also formed of a substantially radiolucent material at least partially encloses inflatable bladder 80. The cover protects inflatable bladder 80 and may also provide a surface or structure for coupling adjust device 16 to base portion 14.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Patton (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient for imaging comprising a radiolucent bladder for lifting) and arrived at a method of positioning a surgical table top according to claim 17 where the third pneumatic bag is radiolucent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because positioning the patient with an inflatable bladder which is radiolucent will “no[t] adversely affect the image quality of the x-ray images taken by the CT scanner or other imaging device” (see paragraph [0036] of Patton).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094) further in view of Patton (US PG Publication 2011/0200177) further in view of Cole (GB 2489118 A).
Regarding Claim 5: Fuchs in view of Jackson and Patton make obvious the surgical table top of claim 4, where the first pneumatic bag further includes a [….] gas hose (see lines 2551 as shown in at least Fig. 5 of Fuchs which are used for inflating the pneumatic bags of Fuchs).
Fuchs, Jackson and Patton do not teach a radiolucent gas hose.
In the same field of endeavor, patient supports for use during imaging (see at least paragraph page 20, lines 7-18 of Cole which teaches “In a preferred embodiment, the mattress 22 is radio-lucent. This is achieved by forming all the components of the mattress 22 (e.g. the internal mattress 10, the mattress cover 24, the air inlet conduit 36a and the air outlet conduit 3Gb from materials which are radio-lucent (i.e. materials which do not exhibit radio-opacity). This enables an x-ray to be taken of a patient lying on the mattress 22 without compromising the quality of the x-ray picture. The internal inflatable mattress 10 may have a static mode of operation (as opposed to the dynamic pressure-relieving mode of operation described above) to ensure that there is no movement of the patient during X-ray imaging”, Cole teaches the use of radiolucent gas hoses (“In a preferred embodiment, the mattress 22 is radio-lucent. This is achieved by forming all the components of the mattress 22 (e.g. the internal mattress 10, the mattress cover 24, the air inlet conduit 36a and the air outlet conduit 3Gb from materials which are radio-lucent (i.e. materials which do not exhibit radio-opacity). This enables an x-ray to be taken of a patient lying on the mattress 22 without compromising the quality of the x-ray picture. The internal inflatable mattress 10 may have a static mode of operation (as opposed to the dynamic pressure-relieving mode of operation described above) to ensure that there is no movement of the patient during X-ray imaging.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Patton (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient for imaging comprising a radiolucent bladder for lifting) and Cole (directed to an inflatable patient support comprising radiolucent conduit) and arrived at a surgical table top according to claim 1 where the first pneumatic bag and gas hoses are radiolucent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because positioning the patient with a patient positioning device which is entirely radiolucent, including radiolucent conduit “enables an x-ray to be taken of a patient lying on the mattress […] without compromising the quality of the x-ray picture” (see at least page 20, lines 7-18 of Cole).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094) further in view of Bartels et al. (US PG. Publication 2002/0165438 – hereinafter Bartels).
Regarding Claim 8: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the surgical table top of claim 1, includes a third support member (support 24 of Fuchs – Fig. 5) that supports the first support part, the second support part, and the first pneumatic bag (see Fig. 5 of Fuchs which show the sections 211-213 and the pillows 251 and 252 supported on support 24).
Fuchs and Jackson do not disclose where the third support member is coupled to a surgical table with at least one fastener.
In the same field of endeavor, patient support devices for examination (see the abstract of Bartels), Bartels teaches a surgical table top comprising a third support member (see universal patient bed 9) which is coupled to a surgical table (see at least the Figure of Bartels and paragraphs [0022] of Bartels which teaches a universal patient bed 9 which can be installed on a number of examination devices) with at least one fastener (see at least paragraph [0027] of Bartels which describes “To this end, it has a coupling fashioned as pegs 35 at its underside. The pegs 35 engage, when the patient bed 9 is placed on the respective part 19, 21, 23, into coupling devices 37 therein. By actuating a lever (not shown) at the respective upper part 19, 21, 23, the rigid coupling of the patient bed 9 to the upper part 19, 21, 23 can be in turn released. The coupling devices 37 are identical at all upper parts 19, 21, 23, so that the patient bed 9 can be universally employed for all of the illustrated examination devices 3, 5, 7.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Bartels (directed to a patient support removably connected to different examination supports) and arrived at a surgical table top according to claim 1 further comprising a third support member which is coupled to a surgical table with at least one fastener.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “the patient bed can be coupled to each of the patient support mechanisms of the different examination and/or treatment devices, the patient to be examined can remain lying on the patient bed while passing through the various examination stations and/or, various of treatment modalities with a number of examination and/or treatment devices. A re-bedding is no longer required. The installation thus has a universal patient bed” as taught in Bartels (see at least paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 16: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 11. Fuchs clearly shows that the support 24 is coupled to a surgical table base in Fig. 5. However, it is not clear if this would be part of a method step of operating or if the support 24 is integral with the base shown in Fig. 5.
In the same field of endeavor, patient support devices for examination (see the abstract of Bartels), Bartels teaches a surgical table top comprising a third support member (see universal patient bed 9) which is coupled to a surgical table (see at least the Figure of Bartels and paragraphs [0022] of Bartels which teaches a universal patient bed 9 which can be installed on a number of examination devices) with at least one fastener (see at least paragraph [0027] of Bartels which describes “To this end, it has a coupling fashioned as pegs 35 at its underside. The pegs 35 engage, when the patient bed 9 is placed on the respective part 19, 21, 23, into coupling devices 37 therein. By actuating a lever (not shown) at the respective upper part 19, 21, 23, the rigid coupling of the patient bed 9 to the upper part 19, 21, 23 can be in turn released. The coupling devices 37 are identical at all upper parts 19, 21, 23, so that the patient bed 9 can be universally employed for all of the illustrated examination devices 3, 5, 7.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Bartels (directed to a patient support removably connected to different examination supports) and arrived at a method for positioning a surgical table top according to claim 11 further comprising the step of securing the third support member to a surgical table base.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “the patient bed can be coupled to each of the patient support mechanisms of the different examination and/or treatment devices, the patient to be examined can remain lying on the patient bed while passing through the various examination stations and/or, various of treatment modalities with a number of examination and/or treatment devices. A re-bedding is no longer required. The installation thus has a universal patient bed” as taught in Bartels (see at least paragraph [0008] of Bartels).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094) further in view of Bartels et al. (US PG. Publication 2002/0165438 – hereinafter Bartels) further in view of Aravamudan (US PG Publication 2015/0327819).
Regarding Claim 9: Fuchs in view of Jackson and Bartels make obvious the surgical table top of claim 8, but do none of Fuchs, Jackson or Bartels disclose or make obvious where the third support member composed of a radiolucent material.
In the same field of endeavor, patient positioning devices for imaging (see at least the abstract of Aravamudan), Aravamudan teaches a patient positioning device (see the abstract of Aravamudan), comprising: a support member composed of radiolucent material (see at least paragraphs [0019] of Aravamudan which teaches “FIG. 1 illustrates a perspective view of a radiolucent patient table top 100. The radiolucent patient table top 100 disclosed herein comprises a first face sheet 101, a second face sheet 102, and a carbon fiber honeycomb core 103. The first face sheet 101 comprises carbon fibers 101a and 101b in a first radiolucent plastic matrix 101c. The second face sheet 102 comprises carbon fibers 102a and 102b in a second radiolucent plastic matrix 102c. In an embodiment, the first plastic matrix 101c of the first face sheet 101 and the second plastic matrix 102c of the second face sheet 102 comprise, for example, a radiolucent epoxy resin. The carbon fiber honeycomb core 103 is disposed between the first face sheet 101 and the second face sheet 102. The first face sheet 101 and the second face sheet 102 sandwich the carbon fiber honeycomb core 103. The honeycomb core 103 comprises carbon fibers 103a embedded in a third radiolucent plastic matrix 103b as exemplarily illustrated in FIGS. 2-3. In an embodiment, the third radiolucent plastic matrix 103b of the honeycomb core 103 comprises, for example, a radiolucent phenolic resin or a radiolucent epoxy resin. In an embodiment, the first radiolucent plastic matrix 101c, the second radiolucent plastic matrix 102c, and the third radiolucent plastic matrix 103b are composed, for example, of a radiolucent thermoset or a thermoplastic.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to combine Fuchs (directed to a patient positioning device for an imaging device) and Jackson (directed to a patient positioning device which is comprised of radiolucent materials for a surgical device used with imaging devices) and Bartels (directed to a patient support removably connected to different examination supports) and Aravamudan (directed to a patient positioning device composed of radiolucent material) and arrived at a surgical table top of claim 1, where the third support part is composed of radiolucent material.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Aravamudan teaches “The radiolucent patient table top disclosed herein addresses the above mentioned problems of fatigue, increased thickness, and reduced stiffness, and addresses the need to reduce dosage of X-rays by improved radiolucency performance” (see paragraph [0010] of Aravamudan).
Regarding Claim 10: Fuchs in view of Jackson, Bartels and Aravamudan make obvious the surgical table top of claim 9, where the radiolucent material is radiolucent laminar sheets (see at least paragraph [0010] of Aravamudan which teaches “[0010] The radiolucent patient table top disclosed herein addresses the above mentioned problems of fatigue, increased thickness, and reduced stiffness, and addresses the need to reduce dosage of X-rays by improved radiolucency performance. The radiolucent patient table top disclosed herein comprises a first face sheet, a second face sheet, and a carbon fiber honeycomb core. The first face sheet comprises carbon fibers in a first radiolucent plastic matrix. The second face sheet comprises carbon fibers in a second radiolucent plastic matrix. The honeycomb core is disposed between the first face sheet and the second face sheet. The first face sheet and the second face sheet sandwich the honeycomb core. The honeycomb core comprises carbon fibers embedded in a third radiolucent plastic matrix”.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchs (DE 102013215454 A1) in view of Jackson (US PG Publication No. 2015/0059094) in view of Cole (GB 2489118 A).
Regarding Claim 19: Fuchs in view of Jackson make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 11, where inflating the first pneumatic bag includes passing gas through a […] pneumatic hose to inflate the first pneumatic bag (see the last paragraph of page 4 of the foreign translation of Fuchs which discloses “The patient support shown in the left three images is part of a patient transport device which contains an air or gas filled container 254 includes. From this container lead gas pipes 255 and 253 to the pillows 251 respectively. 252 , These lines each include a valve 2552 respectively. 2532 for controlling the gas inlet into the individual chambers of the cushions 251 and 252 , each with individual lines 2551 respectively. 2513 with the valves 2552 respectively. 2532 are connected. The adjustment of the valves 2552 and 2532 For example, it is made such that the individual chambers of the pillows fill one after the other so as to realize a more controlled tilting. In the figure below right is shown as by reducing the volume of the gas container 254 Gas in the pillows or cushions 2511 . 2512 . 2513 and 2521 . 2522 and 2523 is pressed, and so the patient is brought from a lying position to a semi-sitting position.”)
Fuchs and Jackson do not disclose wherein the pneumatic hose is radiolucent.
In the same field of endeavor, patient supports for use during imaging (see at least paragraph page 20, lines 7-18 of Cole which teaches “In a preferred embodiment, the mattress 22 is radio-lucent. This is achieved by forming all the components of the mattress 22 (e.g. the internal mattress 10, the mattress cover 24, the air inlet conduit 36a and the air outlet conduit 3Gb from materials which are radio-lucent (i.e. materials which do not exhibit radio-opacity). This enables an x-ray to be taken of a patient lying on the mattress 22 without compromising the quality of the x-ray picture. The internal inflatable mattress 10 may have a static mode of operation (as opposed to the dynamic pressure-relieving mode of operation described above) to ensure that there is no movement of the patient during X-ray imaging”, Cole teaches the use of radiolucent gas hoses (“In a preferred embodiment, the mattress 22 is radio-lucent. This is achieved by forming all the components of the mattress 22 (e.g. the internal mattress 10, the mattress cover 24, the air inlet conduit 36a and the air outlet conduit 3Gb from materials which are radio-lucent (i.e. materials which do not exhibit radio-opacity). This enables an x-ray to be taken of a patient lying on the mattress 22 without compromising the quality of the x-ray picture. The internal inflatable mattress 10 may have a static mode of operation (as opposed to the dynamic pressure-relieving mode of operation described above) to ensure that there is no movement of the patient during X-ray imaging.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have combined Fuchs (directed to a patient support with inflatable bladders for positioning a patient for imaging) and Jackson (directed to a patient support for positioning a patient with the support members formed from radiolucent materials) and Cole (directed to an inflatable patient support comprising radiolucent conduit) and arrived at a method of operating a surgical table top according to claim 11 where the gas hoses are radiolucent.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because positioning the patient with a patient positioning device which is entirely radiolucent, including radiolucent conduit “enables an x-ray to be taken of a patient lying on the mattress […] without compromising the quality of the x-ray picture” (see at least page 20, lines 7-18 of Cole).
Regarding Claim 20: Fuchs in view of Jackson and Patton make obvious the method for positioning the surgical table top of claim 19, including engaging a on a manifold to enable gas to flow through the radiolucent pneumatic hose to the first pneumatic bag (see the last paragraph of page 4 of the English translation of Fuchs which teaches “From this container lead gas pipes 255 and 253 to the pillows 251 respectively. 252 , These lines each include a valve 2552 respectively. 2532 for controlling the gas inlet into the individual chambers of the cushions 251 and 252 , each with individual lines 2551 respectively. 2513 with the valves 2552 respectively. 2532 are connected. The adjustment of the valves 2552 and 2532 For example, it is made such that the individual chambers of the pillows fill one after the other so as to realize a more controlled tilting.” – since the main pipes 255/253 split into a series of individual lines, as shown in Fig. 5 of Fuchs, Fuchs teaches a manifold).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 5,806,115 to Brown is cited for teaching an articulating support which utilizes air bags as the actuator means for lifting and lowering portions of the articulated support.
DE 10027337 to Schindler is cited for teaching a patient support with lifting plates and lifting bags.
US Patent No. 2,769,182 to Nunlist is cited for teaching a mattress with inflatable lifters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673