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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 4, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 4, 11, and 12 have been amended, claim 18 has been canceled, and new claims 19-21 have been added. Thus, claims 1-17 and 19-21 are presently pending in the application.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Centen (US 2010/0228165).
As to claim 1, Centen discloses a surgical table (Fig. 31) comprising
a base (wheeled base shown in Fig. 31),
a tabletop 51 attached to the base (Fig. 31 shows what is essentially a surgical table having a wheeled base and a mattress/tabletop 51 with a non-rigid top surface 7, see paragraphs [0089]-[0090]),
a force sensor 9 (Fig. 31, paragraphs [0089]-[0090]: surface unit 9 includes a reference component and is incorporated into the non-rigid surface 7 of mattress 51; paragraph [0071]: reference component can be a force sensor), and
a controller (processor, paragraph [0058]), wherein
the force sensor 9 is configured to detect a force exerted to the tabletop 51/7 and to transmit the force to the controller (paragraphs [0058],[0071]), and
the controller is configured to evaluate the force exerted to the tabletop 51/7 and to execute a predefined routine for determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a patient lying on the tabletop 51/7 by distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from other forces exerted to the tabletop (paragraph [0058]: the processor determines a relative measurement between the signal component (within compression unit 10) and the reference component (within surface unit 9) using data derived from the signal component and the reference component, and further determines a compression parameter based on the relative measurement; paragraph [0071]: reference component and signal component can be force sensors, the force measurement sensed by the reference component may be subtracted from the force measurement sensed by the signal component to account for surface movement. Thus, the resultant force measurement obtained is the force that actually causes depression of the chest into the patient (taken as the claimed “forces caused by cardiopulmonary resuscitation”) and is distinguished from the force that causes movement of the compression unit 9/non-rigid surface 7 beneath the patient (taken as the claimed “forces exerted to the tabletop”) which does not contribute to the cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the patient)).
As to claim 2, Centen discloses the surgical table of claim 1, wherein the predefined routine is configured to stop evaluation during motion of the surgical table (paragraph [0073], any motion determined in the absence of any sensed force may be ignored or discarded by the processor).
As to claim 6, Centen discloses the surgical table of claim 1, wherein the force sensor 9 is arranged in the tabletop 7/51 (see Fig. 31, paragraph [0090]).
As to claim 10, Centen discloses the surgical table of claim 1, wherein the force sensor 9 is configured to output a signal indicative of the detected force, the force signal being transmitted to the controller (paragraphs [0058],[0071]).
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Palazzolo et al. (US 9,125,793).
As to claim 1, Palazzolo discloses a surgical table (Fig. 26) comprising
a base (bottom of the surface shown in Fig. 26),
a tabletop (surface 80) attached to the base (see Fig. 26),
a force sensor (load sensor 82, col. 17, ln. 11-19), and
a controller (signal processor 4, Fig. 1), wherein
the force sensor 82 is configured to detect a force exerted to the tabletop 80 and to transmit the force to the controller (Fig. 33, col. 17, ln. 11-19; col. 25, ln. 59 – col. 26, ln. 7), and
the controller 4 is configured to evaluate the force exerted to the tabletop and to execute a predefined routine for determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a patient lying on the tabletop by distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from other forces exerted to the tabletop (the controller can detect compression forces when the load sensor detects a force greater than the weight of the patient on the surface, col. 17, ln. 11-19; thus, it is essentially distinguishing forces caused by the compressions of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from forces caused by the weight of the patient on the surface 80).
As to claim 7, Palazzolo discloses the surgical table of claim 1, wherein the force sensor 82 is arranged in the base (see Fig. 26, col. 17, ln. 11-19).
As to claim 8, Palazzolo discloses the surgical table of claim 1, wherein the force sensor 82 is configured as a sensor additionally providing load data of the tabletop 80 to the controller (load sensor 82 can detect the weight of the patient on the table as well as the force of compressions, col. 17, ln. 11-19).
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 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.
Claims 3, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centen (US 2010/0228165), in view of Dussault et al. (US 2018/0161238).
As to claim 3, Centen discloses the surgical table of claim 2, but does not disclose that the predefined routine is configured to determine exerted forces as forces of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation when force peaks values are within a predefined force peak value range (RFP) and a force peak interval is within a predefined force peak interval range.
However, Dussault teaches determining exerted forces as forces of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation when force peaks values are within a predefined force peak value range (detects when a maximum force value is above a threshold, paragraph [0058] or within a target range, paragraph [0030]) and a force peak interval is within a predefined force peak interval range (when frequency of compressions is within a target range, paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surgical table of Centen so that the forces are determined to be CPR forces when the force peak values are within a predefined force peak value range and a force peak interval is within a predefined interval range, as taught by Dussault, in order to provide a suitable means for detecting when valid chest compressions have been performed for better tracking of performance.
As to claim 9, Centen discloses the surgical table of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose that the controller is configured to store occurrence of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, Dussault teaches a controller which stores occurrences of cardiopulmonary resuscitations (paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surgical table of Centen so that the resuscitations are stored by the controller, as taught by Dussault, in order to allow medical personnel to review the compression history when needed.
As to claim 11, Centen discloses a method for detecting cardiopulmonary resuscitation by a surgical table having a tabletop a tabletop 51 (Fig. 31 shows what is essentially a surgical table having a wheeled base and a mattress/tabletop 51 with a non-rigid top surface 7, see paragraphs [0089]-[0090]), a controller (processor, paragraph [0058]), and a force sensor 9 configured to detect a force exerted to the tabletop 51/7 and to transmit the force to the controller (Fig. 31, paragraphs [0089]-[0090]: surface unit 9 includes a reference component and is incorporated into the non-rigid surface 7 of mattress 51; paragraph [0071]: reference component can be a force sensor), the controller is configured to evaluate the force exerted to the tabletop 51/7 and to execute a predefined routine for determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a patient lying on the tabletop 51/7 by distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from other forces exerted to the tabletop (paragraph [0058]: the processor determines a relative measurement between the signal component (within compression unit 10) and the reference component (within surface unit 9) using data derived from the signal component and the reference component, and further determines a compression parameter based on the relative measurement; paragraph [0071]: reference component and signal component can be force sensors, the force measurement sensed by the reference component may be subtracted from the force measurement sensed by the signal component to account for surface movement. Thus, the resultant force measurement obtained is the force that actually causes depression of the chest into the patient (taken as the claimed “forces caused by cardiopulmonary resuscitation”) and is distinguished from the force that causes movement of the compression unit 9/non-rigid surface 7 beneath the patient (taken as the claimed “forces exerted to the tabletop”) which does not contribute to the cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the patient)),
Centen does not expressly disclose the steps: detecting several consecutive force peaks (P1, P2, P3, P1', P2', P3') by the force sensor; and determining the consecutive force peaks (P1, P2, P3) as cardiopulmonary resuscitation if the force peak values are within a predefined force peak value range (RFP) and the force peaks are within a predefined force peak interval range.
However, Dussault teaches determining exerted forces as forces of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation when force peaks values are within a predefined force peak value range (detects when a maximum force value is above a threshold, paragraph [0058] or within a target range, paragraph [0030]) and a force peak interval is within a predefined force peak interval range (when frequency of compressions is within a target range, paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Centen so that the forces are determined to be CPR forces when force peak values are within a predefined force peak value range and a force peak interval is within a predefined interval range, as taught by Dussault, in order to provide a suitable means for detecting when valid chest compressions have been performed for better tracking of performance.
As to claim 13, modified Centen discloses the method of claim 11, wherein an end of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation is determined if, within a predefined interval after a last force peak (P3) determined as being a force peak of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation, there are no force peaks, or the consecutive force peaks are outside the predefined force peak value range (RFP) and/or outside the predefined force peak interval range (see Dussault, paragraph [0058] –when no compressions are detected for an extended period of time).
As to claim 14, modified Centen discloses the method of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose that occurrence of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation is stored by the controller. However, Dussault teaches a controller which stores occurrences of cardiopulmonary resuscitations (paragraph [0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Centen so that the resuscitations are stored by the controller, as taught by Dussault, in order to allow medical personnel to review the compression history when needed.
As to claim 15, modified Centen discloses the method of claim 14, wherein a duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation is detected and stored by the controller (see Dussault, paragraphs [0033],[0058] – time elapsed since first detected force).
As to claim 17, modified Centen discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the step of determining the consecutive force peaks (P1, P2, P3) is stopped during motion of the surgical table (see Centen, paragraph [0073], any motion determined in the absence of any sensed force may be ignored or discarded by the processor).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centen (US 2010/0228165), in view of Dussault et al. (US 2018/0161238), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Chapman et al. (US 2014/0336546).
As to claim 5, modified Centen discloses the surgical table of claim 3, but does not expressly disclose that the predetermined force peak interval range is formed by a range of 80 to 120 force peaks/minute. However, Chapman teaches a target force peak interval range (frequency of compressions) having a value of 80 compressions per minute at the low end and 120 compressions per minute at the high end (paragraph [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surgical table of Centen so that the force peak interval range is 80 to 120 force peaks/minute, as taught by Chapman, in order to ensure that compressions are delivered at an adequate pace to be effective in resuscitating the patient.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centen (US 2010/0228165), in view of Dussault et al. (US 2018/0161238), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0312165).
As to claim 16, modified Centen discloses the method of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose that occurrence of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or a duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation are/is transferred to a hospital's Electronic Medical Record system. However, Johnson teaches sending data such as use and duration of a compression therapy device to an Electronic Medical Record System (paragraph [0216]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Centen so that the use and/or duration data is transferred to the hospital’s Electronic Medical Record system, as taught by Johnson, in order to provide a quick and convenient means of updating the patient’s medical history for review of medical personnel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12 and 19-21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claims 1 and 11, with respect to Centen, Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the remarks (and again on page 10 of the remarks):
Centen is not "distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from other forces exerted to the tabletop." Centen is measuring the relative movement detected by the sensor to characterize parameters of the CPR: "and further determines a compression parameter (e.g., depth of chest compression, rate of chest compression) based on the relative measurement, taking into account motion and/or displacement of the surface 7." (Centen, 0058). Fundamental to Centen is the fact that the CPR assist device has been placed and is in use. Centen's structure is a CPR assist device, there is no need to and Centen does not teach "distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from other forces exerted to the tabletop" as the controller of Centen knows that the signals are related to CPR. For at least this reason, the controller of Centen does not anticipate claim 1.
However, the argument is not well taken because the claim is written broadly enough to read on the disclosure of Centen. Centen’s device is measuring the force that contributes to cardiopulmonary resuscitation of the patient by subtracting out the force exerted on the table/surface 7 that causes the non-rigid surface 7 to compress. By subtracting the force measured by force sensor in unit 9 from the force measured by the force sensor in unit 10, a distinction is made. The resultant force is the force that contributes to compression of the chest into the patient (the cardiopulmonary resuscitation force) which is distinguished from the force caused by the patient being pressed into the compressible surface 7 (force exerted on the table). Thus, Centen’s device still reads on the invention as claimed and the rejection stands.
As to claim 1 and Palazzolo, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the remarks:
Taking the teaching of Palazzolo as a whole, the controller of Palazzolo does not use the signal from load sensor 82 "determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a patient lying on the tabletop by distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation from other forces exerted to the tabletop" as recited by claim 1.
However, the argument is not well taken because the claim is written broadly enough to read on the disclosure of Palazzolo. Palazzolo discloses that load sensor 82 disposed beneath the patient can sense both the weight of the patient and the force of compressions. Then, as applicant acknowledges, Palazzolo states that during compressions, the load sensor 82 reports a total force greater than the patient’s weight and a starting point is set to zero when the total force is about equal to the patient’s weight.
Thus, Palazzolo essentially determines when cardiopulmonary resuscitation begins by comparing the force measured by load sensor 82 to the patient’s weight. If the force reported by load sensor 82 is greater than the weight of the patient, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is being done (i.e., the chest is being compressed) and when the force reported by load sensor 82 is equal to the weight of the patient on the surface, the chest is at a starting point and no compression is being done. Determining the start of compressions by the comparison of the force measured by load sensor 82 to the force of the patient’s weight on the surface reads on “determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation for a patient lying on the tabletop by distinguishing forces caused by the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (force from compressions) from other forces exerted to the tabletop (the weight of the patient). Therefore, Palazzolo still reads on the invention as claimed and the rejection stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached on 571-272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785