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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Claims 1-16 have been amended. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 11/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 USC 112 Claim Rejections in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 8/11/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 11/11/2025.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1) in view of Thorning (US 20080019768 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gomez discloses a patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) comprising: a first frame part (first mounting device 104a); and a second frame part (second mounting device 104b), wherein the first and second frame parts are adapted to receive an associated patient table between the first and second frame parts (See Fig. 1, mounting devices 104a and 104b are each secured to the side rails 90 of table 20, wherein table 20 is between the mounting devices 104a and 104b), wherein the first and second frame parts are mutually connected with each other along a translatory guide that couples the first and second frame parts to each other (See Fig. 1, mounting devices 104a and 104b are mutually connected to support member 110, coupling the mounting devices to each other), wherein the first frame part and the second frame part each comprise a table engagement section (coupler 106) adapted to releasably connect to an associated patient table or parts thereof, (See Fig. 1-3, clamp 114 of coupler 106 releasably connects mounting devices 104a and 104b to the table 20) wherein at least one of the first frame part and/or the second frame part includes a mounting section adapted to provide a releasable connection to a correspondingly formed mounting adaptor (See Fig. 1, each coupler 106 comprises a surgical arm interface 108 allowing sufficient connection of a surgical arm 60 at the second end 111 of the interface 108).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
486
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gomez fails to explicitly disclose the translatory guide that enables the first frame part and the second frame part to move with respect to each other in a first direction, wherein the translatory guide comprises: a first transversal section of the first frame part which extends along the first direction towards the second frame part and includes an extension having a continuous cross-section along the first direction; and a second transversal section of the second frame part which extends along the first direction towards the first frame part and includes a recess having a continuous cross- section along the first direction which corresponds to the cross-section of the extension, the recess being adapted to receive the extension.
However, Thorning teaches the translatory guide (two-part fitting 10) that enables the first frame part and the second frame part to move with respect to each other in a first direction (See Fig. 1-3, male part 12 and female part 14 moving in a first direction), wherein the translatory guide comprises: a first transversal section (See Fig. 1-3, top plate 16 of male part 12) of the first frame part which extends along the first direction towards the second frame part and includes an extension having a continuous cross-section along the first direction (See Fig. 1-3, top plate 16 extends toward female part 14 along a first direction); and a second transversal section (See Fig. 1-3, top plate 28 of female part 14) of the second frame part which extends along the first direction towards the first frame part (See Fig. 1-3, top plate 28 extends towards male part 12 along a first direction) and includes a recess having a continuous cross- section along the first direction (See Fig. 1-3, guiding wings 34 and 36 forming a recess along the top plate 28) which corresponds to the cross-section of the extension, the recess being adapted to receive the extension (See Fig. 1-3, wings 34 and 36 receiving top plate 16).
PNG
media_image4.png
772
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Gomez (directed to a surgical arm mounting system) and Thorning (directed to a method of joining an arresting fitting) before them, to have substituted the arresting fitting comprising a male and female part of Thorning for the support member of Gomez with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein the table engagement sections of the first frame part and the second frame part extend in a second direction transversal, and that is perpendicular to the first direction (See Fig. 1 and 2, couplers 106 extending perpendicular to the support member 110) and/or wherein the table engagement sections of the first frame part and the second frame part extend parallel to each other (See Fig. 1 and 2, couplers 106 extending parallel to each other).
Regarding Claim 4, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein the table engagement sections of the first frame part and the second frame part each include one or more engagement members adapted to releasably engage at least one of: a side-rail of the patient table which particularly extends laterally of the tabletop of the patient table (See Fig. 1-3, clamp 114 of coupler 106 releasably connects mounting devices 104a and 104b to the table 20, in particular side rail 90 which extends laterally along table 20); a frame of the patient table; an auxiliary support plate adapted to rest on the upper surface of the tabletop of the patient table; particularly wherein at least one of the table engagement sections of the first frame part and the second frame part includes an engagement rail enabling the one or more engagement members to connect to a respective engagement section at a varying location along the engagement rail (See Fig. 3, “cavity 117 defined by the C-shaped frame that receives side rail 90. Advancing shaft 115 through bore 116 and cavity 117 places a flange 115a at the distal end of shaft 115 into contact with side rail 90).
Regarding Claim 5, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 4, wherein one or more of the engagement members are adapted to releasably connect to the patient table or parts thereof via a friction fit and/or a positive fit established between the one or more engagement members and the patient table or parts thereof (See Fig. 3, “cavity 117 defined by the C-shaped frame that receives side rail 90. Advancing shaft 115 through bore 116 and cavity 117 places a flange 115a at the distal end of shaft 115 into contact with side rail 90)., wherein one or more of the engagement members include a clamping mechanism (clamp 114”).
Regarding Claim 6, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism adapted to selectively fix the relative position of the first frame part and the second frame part (“clamp 114 can be operated in a manner that transitions coupler 106 between a locked state and an unlocked state”), wherein the locking mechanism selectively fixes the relative position of the first frame part and the second frame part via a friction or positive fit established between the first frame part and the second frame part (See Fig. 3, “sufficient clamping force is applied by shaft 115, relative movement between side rail 90 and coupler 106 is inhibited”).
Regarding Claim 9, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein the patient table mounting frame has a C-shaped geometry with the table engagement sections of the first frame part and the second frame part being spaced apart and extending substantially parallel to each other (See Fig. 1, mounting system 102 comprising support member 110 and mounting devices 104a/104b having C-shaped geometry with the mounting devices 104a/104b and couplers 106 extending parallel to each other), and the translatory guide extending between respective ends of the engagement sections (See Fig. 1, support member 110 extending between mounting devices 104a/104b).
Regarding Claim 10, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein an overall cross-sectional shape of the patient table mounting frame tapers downwards in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (See Fig. 1 and 3, surgical arm interface 108 of arm mounting system 102 tapers downwards in a perpendicular third direction).
Regarding Claim 11, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, further comprising at least one mounting adaptor (See Fig. 1 and 3, proximal links 65 of surgical arm 60) adapted to selectively connect to the mounting section of either one of the first frame part and/or the second frame part (See Fig. 1 and 3, surgical arm 60 mounts to surgical arm interface 108 which can be on either side of system 102).
Regarding Claim 12, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein the mounting section comprises an engagement rail (auxiliary rail 507) enabling at least one mounting adaptor to connect to a respective mounting section at a varying location along the engagement rail (See Fig. 7, coupler 506/surgical arm interface 508 connect to auxiliary rail 507).
PNG
media_image5.png
380
472
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein at least one mounting adaptor is configured to form part of or to connect to an associated automatic or semi-automatic medical robot or an associated articulated support arm (See Fig. 1, surgical arm 60 mounts onto surgical arm interface 108 at second end 111).
Regarding Claim 14, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein at least one mounting adaptor is formed as a rail extending laterally to and at a distance from one of the table engagement sections (See Fig. 7, coupler 506/surgical arm interface 508 connect to auxiliary rail 507 which extends along the length of side rail 90 and coupler 506).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1) in view of Thorning (US 20080019768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu (US 20120241576 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1, wherein the table engagement sections of the first frame part and the second frame part are adapted to connect to the patient table or parts thereof over a predefined distance (See Fig. 3, clamp 114 of coupler 106 is a C-clamp connecting to side rails 90 over a distance).
Gomez in view of Thorning fails to explicitly teach the predefined distance of at least 30 cm.
However, Yu teaches the predefined distance of at least 30 cm (“adapter plate assembly may extend its width to about 36 inches, or more”; [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Gomez in view of Thorning by extending the frame at least 30 cm over the table as taught by Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “accommodate a width of the patient table”; (Yu, [0005]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1) in view of Thorning (US 20080019768 A1) in view of Yu (US 20120241576 A1), further in view of Hu (US 7238155 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1.
Gomez in view of Thorning fails to explicitly teach a drive mechanism adapted to move the first frame part and the second frame part with respect to each other in the first direction, wherein the table engagement sections are adapted to releasably connect to the patient table or parts thereof by being pressed against the patient table or parts thereof via the drive mechanism and/or wherein the drive mechanism is manually activated.
However, Yu teaches the table engagement sections are adapted to releasably connect to the patient table or parts thereof by being pressed against the patient table or parts thereof via the drive mechanism and/or wherein the drive mechanism is manually activated (See Fig. 9 showing plate assembly 1005 clamped to either side of the table 1003 by clamp assemblies 1008 and 1009, See Fig. 11-13, where set knobs 1021 are loosened or tightened to press clamps 1008 and 1009 on sides of table 1003).
PNG
media_image6.png
254
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
254
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
686
468
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Gomez in view of Thorning by modifying the table engagement sections to releasably connect as taught by Yu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “allow the plate assembly to be installed on operating tables that have different widths”; (Yu, [0039]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Gomez in view of Thorning in view of Yu fails to explicitly teach the table engagement sections are adapted to releasably connect to the patient table or parts thereof by being pressed against the patient table or parts thereof via the drive mechanism and/or wherein the drive mechanism is manually activated.
However, Hu teaches a drive mechanism adapted to move the first frame part and the second frame part with respect to each other in the first direction (“handle assembly 24 which facilitates movement of moveable housing 22 relative to bar 15. A first end of first blade 14 may be operably attached to moveable housing 22 and second blade 16 to bar 15”; [Col. 10, Lines 16-20]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Gomez in view of Thorning in view of Yu by adding the drive mechanism taught by Hu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “facilitate movement”; (Hu, [Col. 10, Line 17]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1) in view of Thorning (US 20080019768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooke (US 20050055773 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1.
Gomez fails to explicitly teach extension of the first transversal section is wedge or V-shaped in cross-section along the first direction; of the second transversal section has a wedge or V-shape in cross-section along the first direction corresponding to the wedge or V-shaped cross-section of the extension of the first transversal section of the first frame part; the extension is slidably receivable in the recess; and a frictional force is generated between portions of the first and second transversal sections having the wedge or V-shaped cross-sections for the extension and recess being mutually pressed together in a direction perpendicular to the first direction for maintaining a fixed relative position between the first and second frame parts.
However, Thorning teaches and a frictional force is generated between portions of the first and second transversal sections having the wedge or V-shaped cross-sections for the extension and recess being mutually pressed together in a direction perpendicular to the first direction for maintaining a fixed relative position between the first and second frame parts (See Fig. 6-8, “front edge of the top plate 16 of the male part 12 is moved further on, the arresting flange 32 of the top plate 28 of the female part 14 is pressed downwardly, and the locking becomes tight and frictional”; [0036])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Gomez (directed to a surgical arm mounting system) and Thorning (directed to a method of joining an arresting fitting generating a frictional fit) before them, to have substituted the arresting fitting comprising a male and female part of Thorning for the support member of Gomez with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Gomez in view of Thorning fails to explicitly teach extension of the first transversal section is wedge or V-shaped in cross-section along the first direction; of the second transversal section has a wedge or V-shape in cross-section along the first direction corresponding to the wedge or V-shaped cross-section of the extension of the first transversal section of the first frame part; the extension is slidably receivable in the recess.
However, Cooke teaches extension of the first transversal section is wedge or V-shaped in cross-section along the first direction (See Fig. 6 and 8, central extension 48 having wedge/V-shaped cross section); of the second transversal section has a wedge or V-shape in cross-section along the first direction corresponding to the wedge or V-shaped cross-section of the extension of the first transversal section of the first frame part (See Fig. 6 and 8, corresponding recess having wedge/V-shaped cross section); the extension is slidably receivable in the recess (See Fig. 6 and 8, table portion 10 and end portion slidingly coupled by extension and recess).
PNG
media_image8.png
338
454
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
142
352
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Gomez in view of Thorning by adding the recesses and extensions as taught by Cooke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “joining the two parts”; (Cooke, [0007]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 16, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1.
Gomez in view of Thorning fails to explicitly teach the extension comprises a tapered cross-section.
However, Cooke teaches the extension comprises a tapered cross-section (See Fig. 6 and 8, central extension 48 having a tapered cross-section).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Gomez in view of Thorning by adding the tapered extension as taught by Cooke. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “joining the two parts”; (Cooke, [0007]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1) in view of Thorning (US 20080019768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 20150164725 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Gomez, as modified, teaches the patient table mounting frame (surgical arm mounting system 102) according to claim 1.
Gomez in view of Thorning fails to explicitly teach a head clamp mounting section adapted to releasably connect to at least one of the first frame part and/or the second frame part at a central location adjacent to the translatory guide.
However, Wilson teaches a head clamp mounting section (See Fig. 12-14, skull positioning/fixation device 230) adapted to releasably connect to at least one of the first frame part and/or the second frame part at a central location adjacent to the translatory guide (See Fig. 12-14, cushion 234 which engages with a patient’s forehead is connected to the frame at a central location by threaded screw 116).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Gomez in view of Thorning by adding the skull positioning device as taught by Wilson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “immobilize the skull of the patient”; (Wilson, [0075]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Rejections of claims 2-16 are maintained as being dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160228317 A1: Carn discloses an adjustable surgical support system comprising attachments secured to the side or side rail of a table.
US 20150366438 A1: Wilson discloses a frame attached to a table where a steering device is mounted to hold an imaging device.
US 20090308400 A1: Wilson discloses a patient positioning system where restraints are mounted to the side or side rails of a table.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673