DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for application 18/426,932 filed January 30, 2024, which claims priority from EP23154948.6 filed February 3, 2023. Claims 1-17, as originally filed, are currently pending.
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 . 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) and receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, and 15 repeatedly recite “a medical procedure tabletop” and “a corresponding coupling section”; however, it is unclear whether or not the claims are referring to the same medical procedure tabletop and corresponding coupling section throughout the claims. For examination purposes, each subsequent recitation of “a medical procedure tabletop” and “a corresponding coupling section” after the initial recitation have been interpreted as “the medical procedure tabletop” and “the corresponding coupling section”, respectively, in order to clearly refer to the same medical procedure tabletop and corresponding coupling section throughout the claims.
Claims 4 and 12 each recite the term “preferably” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term (“preferably the resilient member is selected from a spring, a motor, a pneumatic system or a liquid hydraulic system” and “preferably equal or less than 0.4 mm AI at 100kV”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitations “a length of the first section” and “a length of the second section”; however, since claim 8 previously recites the same limitations, it is unclear whether or not claim 9 is referring to the same lengths of the first and second sections. For examination purposes, the above limitations of claim 9 have been interpreted as “the length of the first section” and “the length of the second section”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a coupling section of the module”; however, since claim 1 previously introduces “a coupling section”, it is unclear whether or not claim 17 is referring to the same coupling section. For examination purposes, the above limitations of claim 17 has been interpreted as “the coupling section of the module”.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 16 are included in the rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependence from rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trempert (US 2018/0066689).
Regarding claim 1, Trempert discloses a module (first component 4 of a patient support surface) connectable to a medical procedure tabletop (second component 5 of the patient support surface), the module (4) having a patient facing side and a lower side opposite the patient facing side, wherein the module (4) has a first end directed towards the medical procedure tabletop (5), an opposite second end, and a longitudinal axis device therebetween, wherein a coupling section (locking assembly 2) is arranged towards the first end, the coupling section (2) being configured to engage with a corresponding coupling section (coupling point 3) of the medical procedure tabletop (5) thereby connecting the module (4) to the medical procedure tabletop (5), wherein the coupling section (2) comprises a sliding latch (locking element 8) having a sliding extension (first leg 11) substantially along the longitudinal axis, and a latch activator (unlocking lever 17) coupled to the sliding latch (8), wherein the latch activator (17) is configured to slide the sliding latch (8) substantially along the longitudinal axis, wherein the latch activator (17) is configured to slide substantially towards the second end along the longitudinal axis when the module (4) is engaged with the corresponding coupling section (3) of the medical procedure tabletop (5) in order to disengage the coupling section (2) from the corresponding coupling section (3) of the medical procedure tabletop (5) (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0014 & 0027-0028).
Regarding claim 2, Trempert discloses that the latch activator (17) has an extension essentially towards the lower side (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Trempert discloses that the latch activator (17) protrudes through the lower side (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Trempert discloses that the coupling section (2) comprises a resilient member (resilient element 16) configured to provide a force acting on the sliding latch (8) towards the first end, wherein the resilient member (16) is a spring (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Trempert discloses that the coupling section (2) is essentially hook-shaped (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Trempert discloses that the essentially hook-shaped coupling section (2) is configured to form a hook scarf joint when engaged with a corresponding essentially hook-shaped coupling section (3) of a medical procedure tabletop (5) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Trempert discloses that the coupling section (2) comprises a first section (disengagement section 13) towards the lower side and a second section (locking portion 12) in connection with the first section (13) facing essentially towards the patient facing side, wherein the first section (13) is configured to engage with a corresponding first section (end face 14) of the corresponding coupling section (3) of the medical procedure tabletop (5) and capable of distributing a load acting on the patient facing side of the module (4) in a direction essentially towards the lower side to the corresponding first section (14), and the second section (12) is configured to engage with a corresponding second section (locking receptacle 6) of the corresponding coupling section (3) of the medical procedure tabletop (5) and capable of distributing a load acting on the patient facing side of the module (4) in a direction toward the patient facing side to the corresponding second section (6) (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0021-0023).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Trempert discloses a medical procedure tabletop (second component 5 of the patient support surface) comprising the module (4) according to claim 1, wherein the medical procedure tabletop (5) comprises a corresponding coupling section (coupling point 3) configured to engage with the coupling section (2) of the module (4) (Figs. 1-3; ¶ 0014 & 0027-0028).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trempert as applied to claims 1 and 7 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Trempert discloses the invention, substantially as claimed, as described above, and it appears that a ratio between a length of the first section (13) and a length of the second section (12) could be between 0.5-0.75 (Figs. 2-3). Although Trempert fails to expressly teach that the first section has a length of between 5-25 mm and the second section has a length of between 10-40 mm and a ratio between the length of the first section and the length of the second section is between 0.5-0.75, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the module taught by Trempert such that the first section has a length of between 5-25 mm and the second section has a length of between 10-40 mm and a ratio between the length of the first section and the length of the second section is between 0.5-0.75 since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, although the coupling section (2) of the module (4) taught by Trempert is capable of being tilted in relation to the corresponding coupling section (3) of the medical procedure tabletop (5) in order to engage with the corresponding coupling section of the medical procedure tabletop, Trempert fails to expressly teach that the coupling section is configured to be tilted between 10-30 degrees.
However, the ability of the coupling section to tilt between 10-30 degrees in relation to the corresponding coupling section would depend on the relative shapes of the coupling section and the corresponding coupling section.
First, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the module taught by Trempert to have shape enabling the coupling section to tilt between 10-30 degrees in relation to the corresponding coupling section in order to engage with the corresponding coupling section of the medical procedure tabletop since Applicant has not disclosed that such a shape solves any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a module that can engage and secure to medical procedure tabletop. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Further, it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trempert as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Roselius et al. (US 2015/0026889).
Regarding claim 10, although Trempert discloses that the module (4) and the medical procedure tabletop (5) are components of a patient support surface (¶ 0014), which implicitly is configured to support a patient, Trempert fails to teach that the module has a safe working load of 300 kg when connected to the medical procedure tabletop.
Roselius discloses an analogous patient support surface (table top 2) configured to tolerate a maximum load of 300 kg (¶ 0015 & 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to construct the patient support surface taught by Trempert such that the module has a safe working load of 300 kg when connected to the medical procedure tabletop as taught by Roselius for the purpose of supporting a patient weighing up to 300 kg while remaining stable.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Trempert discloses the invention, substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the module is suitable for an X-ray procedure, wherein the module has an X-ray attenuation equivalent of less than 0.6 mm AI at 100kV.
Roselius discloses an analogous patient support surface (table top 2) suitable for an X-ray procedure, wherein the module has an X-ray attenuation equivalent of less than 0.6 mm AI at 100kV (¶ 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to construct the patient support surface taught by Trempert such that the module is suitable for an X-ray procedure, wherein the module has an X-ray attenuation equivalent of less than 0.6 mm AI at 100kV as taught by Roselius for the purpose of enabling the module to be used with X-ray imaging equipment.
Regarding claim 13, Trempert discloses the invention, substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the module is carbon fiber reinforced.
Roselius discloses an analogous patient support surface (table top 2) that is carbon fiber reinforced (¶ 0003-0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to construct the patient support surface taught by Trempert such that the module is carbon fiber reinforced as taught by Roselius for the purpose of providing low X-ray absorption for improved use with X-ray imaging equipment.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 14, Trempert discloses the invention, substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the module has a thickness of less than 40 mm.
Roselius discloses an analogous patient support surface (table top 2) having a thickness of less than 40 mm (¶ 0012, 0027-0028, 0050, & 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to construct the patient support surface taught by Trempert such that the module has a thickness of less than 40 mm as taught by Roselius for the purpose of providing a module that is sufficiently rigid to support a patient.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Kolody et al. (US 7,020,917) and Cooke (US 2005/0055773).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 10/17/2025