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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3, 8, 9 and 11-28 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 10, 2025. Moreover, dependent claim 10 has also been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species; please refer to Figures 7-7B and page 15, paragraphs 0084-0087 of the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 20, as described on page 7, in paragraph 0046 of the specification, is missing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure
is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 8, in paragraph 0051, line 4 of the specification: The number “114” should be changed to --14--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1) In claim 1, line 10: The term --vertical-- should be inserted before the term “sleeve”.
2) In the last line of claim 2: The term --mechanism-- should be inserted after the term “support”, and the second “.” should be deleted.
3) In claim 5, line 3: The term --the-- should be inserted before the first instance of the term “vertical”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 1,516,795 to Schwarting. With respect to claim 1, Schwarting shows the claimed limitations of a surgeon support system comprising: a base system attachable to a side rail of an operating table (6), the base system comprising: a clamp member (9-12) adapted to be slidably received on an operating table side rail (as shown in Figures 1-3 and on page 1, in lines 69-76), an elongated member (8) coupled to the clamp member (9-12) at a first end and
extending laterally away therefrom in a direction perpendicular to a received side rail to a second end (also as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described on page 1, in lines 64-69), and a sleeve mechanism (15) coupled to the elongated member (8) distally from the clamp member (9-12), the sleeve mechanism including a vertical sleeve (15) (also as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described on page 1, in lines 77-80); a vertical support (16 & 18-20) comprising a vertical member (16) having a first end configured to be received by the vertical sleeve (15) and extending upward from the first end to a second end distal from the vertical sleeve (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described on page 1, in lines 80-84); and a surgeon support mechanism (22-27) coupled to the vertical support (16 & 18-20) and extending laterally therefrom in a direction perpendicular to the vertical member (16) (as shown in Figure 1 and as described on page 2, in lines 2-13).
With respect to claims 2 and 7, the reference further discloses wherein the vertical support (16 & 18-20) comprises a horizontal member (20) having a first end near the second end of the vertical member (16), the horizontal member extending laterally toward the clamp member (9-12) to a second end, wherein the surgeon support mechanism (22-27) is coupled to the horizontal member (20) near its second end (also as shown in Figures 1 & 2 and as described on page 1, in lines 87-91 and on page 2, in lines 2-6); and wherein the sleeve mechanism (15) comprises a sleeve configured to receive the elongated member (16) and slide relative thereto, the sliding of the sleeve mechanism relative to the elongated member moving the vertical support (16 & 18-20) relative to the clamp member (9-12) (as shown in Figures 1-3 and as described on page 1, in lines 80-86).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarting ‘795. Schwarting further discloses the use of a surgeon support (28-31) coupled or attached to the surgeon support mechanism (22-27) such that the surgeon support can rotate relative to the vertical support (16 & 18-20) (as shown in Figures 1-5 and as described on page 2, in lines 9-36), a rotational locking mechanism (24) to fix the surgeon support mechanism (22-27) at different angles of rotation (as shown in Figures 1-5 and as described on page 2, in lines 6-9), and wherein the rotational locking mechanism (24) is located near the second end of the horizontal member (20) (as shown in Figures 1 & 2). However, Schwarting discloses wherein the surgeon support mechanism comprises a ball and socket joint (25, 26) as opposed to an axle as claimed.
The skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ball and socket joint of the surgeon support system of Schwarting with an axle, since such a modification would have been generally recognized as being a substitution of art-recognized functional equivalents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Lano ‘673, Walczyk ‘035, Walczyk ‘791, Easterling ‘832, Easterling ‘904, Easterling ‘478, Easterling ‘660, Easterling ‘158, Mullin et al. ‘245, Moore et al. ‘355, Douglass, Jr., et al. ‘072 and Lano ‘221.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7048. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-11:30am and 2pm-7:30pm.
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 C 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.
/ROBERT G SANTOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673