DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/25/25, 4/22/26, and 4/27/26. Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-16 and 18-21 are rejected. Claim 17 is objected to.
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 .
Title
The title is objected to. The title is not descriptive of the claimed invention; a new title is required. See MPEP §606.
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 of this title, 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, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”).
Claim 1. A mobile medical platform system, comprising: a table with a base and a table top (Yu, Fig. 7 discloses a table with a base and a table top); one or more robotic arms that are coupled to the table (Yu, Fig. 7 discloses robotic arms); one or more wheel assemblies (Yu, paragraph [0063] and [0133]-[0136]) that are coupled to the base to support and move the base in a physical environment, wherein a respective wheel assembly of the one or more wheel assemblies includes at least one motorized wheel (Yu generally discusses wheels connected to the base for positioning or transporting the system, but does not discuss details of a motorized wheel; however Childs discusses a motorized wheel in motors in paragraph [0030]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Apparatus of Yu for the predictable benefit of being able to transport or reposition the apparatus); a first input device that is configured to receive user inputs of a first input type user inputs of a second input type, and user inputs of a third input type (Yu discloses a medical bed but does not disclose details of the user interface controller; Childs, Fig. 1, discloses a control panel, CP is seen on footboard; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Yu with the user interface of Childs in order to be able to control the movement of the table and robotic arms of Yu; furthermore, providing the apparatus of Yu with the user interface of Childs since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results); one or more processors (Childs, paragraph [0033]); and memory (Childs, paragraph [0033]) storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive a first user input of the first input type via the first input device; and in response to receiving the first user input of the first input type and in accordance with a determination that the first user input meets first criteria, initiate first movement of the at least one motorized wheel in accordance with the first user input of the first input type (Childs, paragraph [0036] discloses using the control panel to receive user input and in response one of the powered devices #70-90 is actuated), receive a second user input of the second input type via the first input device; in response to receiving the second user input of the second input type and in accordance with a determination that the second user input meets second criteria, initiate second movement of the table top relative to the base in accordance with the second user input of the second input type receive a third user input of the third input type via the first input device and in response to receiving the third user input of the third input type and in accordance with a determination that the third user input meets third criteria, initiate third movement of the one or more robotic arms to a stowed position beneath the table top (the robotic arms of Yu are capable of being stowed beneath the table top as seen in Fig. 8D) in accordance with the third user input of the third input type (Childs discloses a user interface and provides additional details, including a second input type, which initiates a movement of the table top as seen in Fig. 2 at #70 through #90; moreover, regarding movement of robotic arms, a third input type is interpreted as one in which the position of robotic arms are manipulated by a user; the location of the robotic arms relative to the bed and the patient is discussed by Yu in at least paragraphs [0111]-[0113], specifically paragraph [0112] discloses “the physician or another user may design a configuration of the surgical robotics system by creating the instructions and providing the instructions to the computer system,” which reads on a third input type).
Claim 7. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes a touch sensitive display, and wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first input device is in a first operation mode, present a first user interface for controlling mobility of the mobile medical platform system, including one or more affordances for controlling the at least one motorized wheel; and in accordance with a determination that the first input device is in a second operation mode, present a second user interface for interacting with the table top, including one or more affordances for changing a position of the table top relative to the base (Childs teaches the use of a touch screen in paragraph [0037]; in the proposed combination of prior art teachings of Yu and Childs it would have been obvious to provide a touch screen as a controller of the bed of Childs or of the robotic arms of Yu, in order to control the arms, and since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 21. See rejections of claim 1 above. Regarding additional language directed toward “initiate first movement of the one of more robotic arms relative to the table top in accordance with the first user input”, see at least Yu paragraphs [0111]-[0113] for discussion of control of the robotic arms.
Claim 3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”) and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs ‘821”)
Claim 3. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device is a pendant that is coupled to the table (Childs paragraph [0033] discloses “The controller 102 may be carried on-board the patient support apparatus 30, or may be remotely located: but does not explicitly disclose the use of a pendant; however, pendants are well known in the art of medical beds, such as taught by Childs ‘821, which states in paragraph [0035], “The user input devices 52 may also be located remotely, such as on remote pendants”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yu with a pendant in order to control the apparatus with a user control interface, while preventing the controller from becoming lost and separated from the table).
Claim 8. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes a control affordance, and wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the control affordance is activated at a first time, transition from operating the first input device in a first mode to a second mode that is different from the first mode; and in accordance with a determination that the control affordance is activated at a second time after the first time, transition from operating the first input device from the second mode to the first mode (Childs ‘821 discloses in paragraph [0032] that the actuators, i.e. wheel drive motor, may be placed in an on or off condition as determined from sensors; Childs further discloses in paragraphs [0061]-[0063] that motion of the drive wheel is disabled based on sensor inputs such that the wheel is only deployed when the bed is in motion; in other words, when the bed is stationary and robotic arms are being actively used for surgery, then the drive wheel of Childs would be disabled, which reads on Applicant’s first and second modes; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yu with the control affordance system of Childs ‘821 in order to ensure that the apparatus is stable and not skidding, as discussed in Childs ‘821 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 9. The mobile medical platform system of claim 8, wherein the first input device includes a display, the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first input device is operating in the first mode, display a first user interface with a first orientation on the display, wherein the first user interface includes one or more first affordances for controlling movement of the table; and in accordance with a determination that the first input device is operating in the second mode, display a second user interface via the display with a second orientation on the display, the second orientation being different from the first orientation, wherein the second user interface includes one or more second affordances for reviewing a status of the mobile medical platform system (Applicant’s “orientation” has been interpreted as information or images relating to the position of the motor driven wheel, in the first view, or the position of the robotic arms, in the second view; Childs ‘821 discloses a control panel that provides information on the motor driven wheel, and Yu generally discloses a control system that provides information on the position of the robotic arms; in the combination of Yu and Childs, and Childs ‘821, a display would be used to show the position of robotic arms of Yu as discussed in Childs paragraph [0055], “the display 136 may comprise indicia such as text, graphics, etc. to indicate the current functionality”, regarding “one or more first affordances”, see claim 5).
Claim 10. The mobile medical platform system of claim 8, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the first mode, orienting the at least one motorized wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies in a first predefined configuration to enable movement of the base in the physical environment; and in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the second mode, orienting the at least one motorized wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies in a second predefined configuration to restrict movement of the base in the physical environment, wherein the second predefined configuration is different from the first predefined configuration (Childs discloses in paragraph [0032] that the actuators, i.e. wheel drive motor, may be placed in an on or off condition as determined from sensors; Childs further discloses in paragraphs [0061]-[0063] that motion of the drive wheel is disabled based on sensor inputs such that the wheel is only deployed when the bed is in motion; in other words, when the bed is stationary and robotic arms are being actively used for surgery, then the drive wheel of Childs would be disabled, which reads on Applicant’s first and second modes).
Claim 11. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes an accelerometer, and the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in response to detecting a falling motion of the first input device using the accelerometer, activate a lock-out mode in which user inputs directed to the first input device are ignored (Childs ‘821 teaches the use of an accelerometer in paragraph [0062]-[0063] in which the accelerometer data may be used to disable the drive wheel in instances where the wheel skids, or the bed becomes unstable; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yu with the accelerometer system of Childs ‘821 in order to ensure that the apparatus is stable and not skidding, as discussed in Childs ‘821 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”), US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs ‘821”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0271607 to Kralicky et al. (“Kralicky”).
Claim 10. The mobile medical platform system of claim 8, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the first mode, orienting the at least one motorized wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies in a first predefined configuration to enable movement of the base in the physical environment; and in accordance with a determination the first input device is operating in the second mode, orienting the at least one motorized wheel of the one or more wheel assemblies in a second predefined configuration to restrict movement of the base in the physical environment, wherein the second predefined configuration is different from the first predefined configuration (Applicant’s system to enable or disable the motorized wheels has been interpreted in accordance with specification paragraph [0010] which describes a system in which movement control of the robotic arms may be disabled; Childs and Niemeyer do not teach a system of disabling or enabling motion of the drive wheel or the robotic arms; however Kralicky teaches such a system in at least the abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arms and/or the drive wheel of Yu with the motion disablement system of Kralicky for the purpose discussed in the abstract, and in paragraph [0007], that being to reduce alignment error between the user controls and the robotic arms
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”) and US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”)
Claim 4. The mobile medical platform system of claim 1, wherein the first input device includes a first joystick and a second joystick (Yu does not disclose specifics of the control system of the apparatus, however, the use of joysticks is well known in the art of telesurgery, as taught by Niemeyer, Fig. 11, #622; Niemeyer discloses two master controls, or joysticks, in column 6, lines 4-6; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yu with joysticks in order for a physician to control the arms during a surgical operation, an since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 6. The mobile medical platform system of claim 4, including: a first visual indicator disposed adjacent to the first joystick, and a second visual indicator disposed adjacent to the second joystick, wherein: the first visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the first joystick, and the second visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the second joystick (Niemeyer teaches a viewer #202 in Fig. 7 which displays a three dimensional representation of the robotic arms on a two dimensional viewer; the two dimensions of the viewer are considered to be a first and a second visual indicator; Examiner notes that Applicant’s paragraphs [0162]-[0164] provide additional information regarding these visual indicators, however, the current claim language is broad and the teachings of Niemeyer currently read on the claim language).
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”), US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0271607 to Kralicky et al. (“Kralicky”).
Claim 5. The mobile medical platform system of claim 4, wherein the first input device includes a motion control affordance, and wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the motion control affordance is activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, enable a movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick; and in accordance with a determination that the motion control affordance is not activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, disable the movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick (Applicant’s “affordance” has been interpreted in accordance with specification paragraph [0010] which describes a system in which movement control of the robotic arms may be disabled; Childs and Niemeyer do not teach a system of disabling motion of the robotic arms; however Kralicky teaches such a system in at least the abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the motion disablement system of Kralicky for the purpose discussed in the abstract, and in paragraph [0007], that being to reduce alignment error between the user controls and the robotic arms).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”), US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu, and US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”).
Claim 14. The input device of claim 12, further comprising: a first joystick and a second joystick (Yu does not disclose specifics of the control system of the apparatus, however, the use of joysticks is well known in the art of telesurgery, as taught by Niemeyer in column 6, lines 4-6, and Fig. 11, #622; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yu with joysticks in order for a physician to control the arms during a surgical operation, an since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claim 15. The input device of claim 14, further comprising: a first visual indicator disposed adjacent to the first joystick, and a second visual indicator disposed adjacent to the second joystick, wherein: the first visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the first joystick, and the second visual indicator is dynamically updated in accordance with characteristics of a movement input received via the second joystick (Niemeyer teaches a viewer #202 in Fig. 7 which displays a three dimensional representation of the robotic arms on a two dimensional viewer; the two dimensions of the viewer are considered to be a first and a second visual indicator; Examiner notes that Applicant’s paragraphs [0162]-[0164] provide additional information regarding these visual indicators, however, the current claim language is broad and the teachings of Niemeyer currently read on the claim language).
Claims 12-13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu.
Claim 12. Regarding limitations directed toward robotic arms, see Yu, regarding limitations directed toward a user interface see Childs, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Regarding additional limitations directed toward “visual feedback regarding a current positional status of the [[bed]] table top relative to the base and and/or the one or more robotic arms of the mobile medical platform system relative to the table top,” Bhimavarapu additionally discloses a user interface and provides additional details, including a visual feedback as seen in Fig. 11 at #136, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the graphical user interface of Bhimavarapu to provide a visual indication of the current position of the table top of Childs since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and for the obvious benefit of being able to provide the additional movement capability of the bed of Bhimavarapu to the bed and robotic arms of Yu.
Claim 13. The input device of claim 12, wherein: the first view of the user interface that corresponds to the first mode has a first orientation; and the second view of the user interface that corresponds to the second mode has a second orientation that is different from the first orientation (Applicant’s “orientation” has been interpreted as information or images relating to the position of the motor driven wheel, in the first view, or the position of the robotic arms, in the second view; Childs ‘821 discloses a control panel that provides information on the motor driven wheel, and Yu generally discloses a control system that provides information on the position of the robotic arms; in the combination of Yu and Childs, a display would be used to show the position of robotic arms of Yu as discussed in Childs paragraph [0055], “the display 136 may comprise indicia such as text, graphics, etc. to indicate the current functionality”).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”), US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu, US Patent 6,364,888 to Niemeyer et al. (“Niemeyer”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0271607 to Kralicky et al. (“Kralicky”).
Claim 16. The input device of claim 14, further comprising: a first control affordance, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in accordance with a determination that the first control affordance is activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, enable a movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick; and in accordance with a determination that the first control affordance is not activated while user inputs are received by at least one of the first joystick and the second joystick, disable the movement control function of the first joystick and the second joystick (Applicant’s “affordance” has been interpreted in accordance with specification paragraph [0010] which describes a system in which movement control of the robotic arms may be disabled; Childs and Niemeyer do not teach a system of disabling motion of the robotic arms; however Kralicky teaches such a system in at least the abstract; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the robotic arms of Niemeyer with the motion disablement system of Kralicky for the purpose discussed in the abstract, and in paragraph [0007], that being to reduce alignment error between the user controls and the robotic arms).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu, and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172821 to Childs et al. (“Childs ‘821”).
Claim 18. The input device of claim 12, further comprising: a second control affordance for transitioning the input device between the first mode and the second mode, wherein the transition event includes detection of a preset user input via the second control affordance of the input device (Applicant's invention transitions from a surgery mode to a driven wheel mode when the first control affordance is activated; Childs ‘821 teaches a comparable system in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] in which the drive wheel is activated when movement of the bed is detected, i.e. when the bed is not in a surgery mode; regarding a "preset user input", Childs ‘821paragraph [0061] discloses "a predetermined speed threshold (e.g., at or above 0.5 mph, at or above 1.0 mph, at or above 2.0 mph, and the like," which read on Applicant's preset user input; furthermore Childs ‘821 discloses in paragraph [0032] that the actuators, i.e. wheel drive motor, may be placed in an on or off condition as determined from sensors; Childs further discloses in paragraphs [0061]-[0063] that motion of the drive wheel is disabled based on sensor inputs such that the wheel is only deployed when the bed is in motion; in other words, when the bed is stationary and robotic arms are being actively used for surgery, then the drive wheel of Childs would be disabled, which reads on Applicant’s first and second modes; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Yu with the control affordance system of Childs ‘821 in order to ensure that the apparatus is stable and not skidding, as discussed in Childs ‘821 paragraph [0063]).
Claim 20. The input device of claim 12, further comprising: an accelerometer, wherein the memory further stores instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: in response to detecting a falling motion of the input device, activate a lock-out mode of the input device in which user inputs directed to the input device are ignored (Childs ‘821 teaches the use of an accelerometer in paragraph [0062]-[0063] in which the accelerometer data may be used to disable the drive wheel in instances where the wheel skids, or the bed becomes unstable).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2017/0172673 to Yu et al. (“Yu”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143565 to Childs et al. (“Childs”), US Patent Application Publication 2018/0374577 to Bhimavarapu, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0277242 to Dionne et al. (“Dionne”).
Claim 19. The input device of claim 12, wherein: the mobile medical platform system further includes one or more wheel assemblies, a respective wheel assembly of the one or more wheel assemblies including at least one motorized wheel, and the memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to: in response to detecting the transition event that transitions the input device from the first mode to the second mode and in accordance with a determination the input device is in the second mode, orient motorized wheels of the one or more wheel assemblies in a predefined braking configuration to restrict movement of the mobile medical platform system; detect a second transition event that transitions the input device from the second mode to a first mode; and in response to detecting the second transition event that transitions the input device from the second mode to the first mode and in accordance with a determination the input device is in the first mode, orient the motorized wheels of the one or more wheel assemblies in a first predefined configuration to enable movement of the [[bed]] base, wherein the first predefined configuration is different from the predefined braking configuration (Childs ‘565 does not disclose details of a braking system, however wheel brakes are well known in the art of hospital beds, such as taught by Dionne paragraph [0156]; Dionne teaches a brake state wherein the casters are locked, as well as a different state where the drive wheel mechanism is actuated; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Childs with wheel brakes in order to ensure that the bed doesn’t inadvertently move when it is not desired to do so, such as during a medical or surgical procedure).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected as discussed above, however claims 6 and 15 are directed toward a first and second visual indicator. As discussed in the above rejections, Niemeyer teaches a viewer which reads on Applicant’s visual indicators. However, Applicant’s paragraphs [0162]-[0164] provide additional information regarding these visual indicators and Applicant may be able to overcome the prior art of record by reciting additional structural details in the claims.
Claim 17 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim. Claim 17 is directed toward a “transition” from one mode to another based on “the first control affordance is activated.” Childs ‘565 teaches a drive wheel control system which performs this functionality at least in paragraphs [0060]-[0063] in order to prevent an unstable situation of the bed. While this capability is known in the prior art, it is not found in the prior art with the combined aggregate of Applicant’s recited invention of claim 17. Moreover, it would be unreasonable to modify the combined teaching of Yu, Childs ‘565, Bhgimavarapu, Niemeyer, and Kralicky, with the additional teachings of Childs ‘821, there is no motivation to do so in a manner that would yield the claimed invention.
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
In remarks dated 4/27/26, Applicant argues that the prior art of Neimeyer does not teach an apparatus whose robotic arms may be stowed in a position beneath a table top. While this may or may not be true, the argument is moot as new rejections have been entered in this office action in view of the teachings of Yu. The prior art of Yu discloses a system in which robotic arms are stowed beneath a table top in at least Fig. 8D.
Moreover, the combined prior art of Yu, in combination with various other prior art cited above, provide multiple bed capabilities, including the use of a motorized drive wheel, the ability to adjust a tabletop in various ways, and the ability to use robotic arms, as well as an appropriate user interface to control each of these functions. These functions read on Applicant’s claimed first, second, and third user input types, as discussed in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached on 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights