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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12 have been examined in this application. Claims 6 and 11 have been canceled. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant's “Amendments/Remarks” filed 02/18/2026.
Claim Objections
The claim objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 01/23/2026 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 02/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 112(b) claim rejections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 01/23/2026 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 02/18/2026.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weil et al., hereinafter 'Weil' (US 20020029419 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Weil teaches: A medical procedure table (Para 0031) comprising: a base (12 - Fig. 1);
a plurality of parallel spars ([30, 32, 34, 36] - Fig. 1, Para 0033) supported above the base (Fig. 1), each spar having inner and outer lateral walls (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Weil); and
a plurality of table top segments ([20, 22, 24, 26] - Fig. 1) detachable from the spars (Para 0033 and further noting Para 0007), each table top segment having:
a substantially planar top surface (Para 0011 and Fig. 1);
a bottom (14 - Fig. 7) with a plurality of parallel channels (see annotated Fig. 7.1 from Weil) for receiving the spars as the table top segment is seated over the spars (Fig. 1) and constraining lateral movement of the table top segment on the spars (Para 0006); and
a plurality of locking mechanisms (222 - Fig. 7) adjacent to the channels to removably secure the table top segment at a position along the spars (Para 0068, wherein Figs. 8-10 show the removable securing through the locking mechanism), each locking mechanism having a locking grip (232 - Fig. 8, Para 0053) automatically rotating between: (i) a released position (Fig. 10, Para 0022, Para 0053 and Para 0059) in which a table top segment of the plurality of table top segments is configured to detach from the spars (Fig. 12 indicates a table top segment of the plurality of table top segments detached from the spars); and (ii) a locked position (Fig. 9, Para 0021, Para 0059) in which the locking grip is compressed against a spar (Fig. 9 shows the locking grip 232 moving, and compressing 230 against spar 24) to thereby automatically secure the table top segment to the spar as the table top segment is seated over the spars (shown in Fig. 9 to be seated partially over the spars around element 136 and further the table top segment 24 is partially shown in Fig. 9 to be over the spars, when it is placed into its configuration in Fig. 9 the table top segment and spar would be automatically secured).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2.1 from Weil
PNG
media_image2.png
667
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7.1 from Weil
In regards to Claim 2, Weil teaches: The medical procedure table of claim 1, wherein the channels comprise lips extending downward from the table top segment (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil), and the locking mechanisms are located adjacent to the channels opposite the lips, (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil) whereby the spars are gripped between the lips and the locking mechanism (Figs 7 and 8 show the spars between the lips and locking mechanism wherein Figs. 9-10 show the actual gripping).
PNG
media_image3.png
486
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil
In regards to Claim 3, Weil teaches: The medical procedure table of claim 1, wherein the channels comprise lips extending downward from the table top segment over the outer lateral walls of the spars as the table top segment is seated over the spars (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil), and the locking mechanisms are located adjacent to the inner lateral walls of the spars (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil), whereby the spars are gripped between the lips and the locking mechanism (Figs 7 and 8 show the spars between the lips and locking mechanism wherein Figs. 9-10 show the actual gripping).
In regards to Claim 4, Weil teaches: The medical procedure table of claim 1, wherein the locking grip is cam-shaped (Para 0053: "Each illustrated locking assembly 222 further includes a cam 232 coupled to the end portions of shaft 218 between the associated bracket 226 and wall 88 of platform 274. Cams 232 are fixed to shaft 218 to rotate therewith.").
In regards to Claim 5, Weil teaches: The medical procedure table of claim 1, wherein the locking mechanism further comprises a spring biasing a rotational position of the locking grip to remain in the released position when the table top segment is not seated over the spars (254 - Figs. 9-10, Para 0054).
In regards to Claim 8, Weil teaches: A medical procedure table (Para 0031) comprising: a base (12 - Fig. 1);
a plurality of parallel spars ([30, 32, 34, 36] - Fig. 1, Para 0033) supported above the base (Fig. 1), each spar having inner and outer lateral walls (see annotated Fig. 2.1 from Weil); and
a plurality of table top segments ([20, 22, 24, 26] - Fig. 1) detachable from the spars (Para 0033 and further noting Para 0007), each table top segment having:
a substantially planar top surface (Para 0011 and Fig. 1);
lips extending downward from the table top segment (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil) to define channels for receiving the spars and constraining lateral movement of the table top segment on the spars (Para 0006); and
locking mechanisms adjacent to the channels (222 - Fig. 7) at a position along the spars (Fig. 7 shows element 22 along the spars 34 on either side), each locking mechanism having a cam-shaped locking grip (232 - Fig. 8, Para 0053) automatically rotating between: (i) a released position (Fig. 10, Para 0022, Para 0053 and Para 0059) in which a table top segment of the plurality of table top segments is configured to detach from the spars (Fig. 12 indicates a table top segment of the plurality of table top segments detached from the spars); and (ii) a locked position (Fig. 9, Para 0021, Para 0059) in which the locking grip is compressed against a spar (Fig. 9 shows the locking grip 232 moving, and compressing 230 against spar 24) to grip the spar between the locking grip and at least one lip to thereby automatically secure the table top segment to the spar as the table top segment is seated over the spars (shown in Fig. 9 to be seated partially over the spars around element 136 and further the table top segment 24 is partially shown in Fig. 9 to be over the spars, when it is placed into its configuration in Fig. 9 the table top segment and spar would be automatically secured).
In regards to Claim 9, Weil teaches: The medical procedure table of claim 8, wherein the channels comprise lips extending downward from the table top segment over the outer lateral walls of the spars as the table top segment is seated over the spars (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil), and the locking mechanisms are located adjacent to the inner lateral walls of the spars (see annotated Fig. 7.2 from Weil), whereby the spars are gripped between the lips and the locking mechanism (Figs 7 and 8 show the spars between the lips and locking mechanism wherein Figs. 9-10 show the actual gripping).
In regards to Claim 10, Weil teaches: The medical procedure table of claim 8, wherein the locking mechanism further comprises a spring biasing a rotational position of the locking grip to remain in the released position when the table top segment is not seated over the spars (254 - Figs. 9-10, Para 0054).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Claim 7, while Weil and Martin each disclose locking structures for securing a table top segment relative to supporting spars, neither reference discloses or suggests an automatic, passive locking action that is triggered by seating the table top segment onto the spars. Specifically, the cited references require manual actuation, separate locking steps, or intentional user manipulation to transition from a released state to a locked state. The claimed configuration requires that mere placement or seating of the table top segment over the spars causes the tip to contact the spar and automatically rotate the locking grip into the locked position, thereby compressing the contact surface against the spar without additional user input. This automatic rotation and engagement mechanism provides a self-locking function driven by geometric interaction during installation, which is not shown or suggested by Weil or Martin. Furthermore, there is no teaching or motivation in the cited references to modify their respective locking mechanisms to achieve an automatic rotational locking action upon seating, as opposed to conventional manually actuated locking approaches. Such a modification would require a substantial redesign of the locking mechanism and its interaction with the spars, and is therefore not an obvious design choice.
In regards to Claim 12, although Weil and Martin disclose locking grips and engagement surfaces, neither reference discloses a locking grip that transitions from a released state to a locked state solely as a result of seating the table top segment over the spars. The claimed invention requires a passively actuated locking mechanism in which the physical interaction between the tip and the spar inherently causes rotation and locking, without manual intervention. The cited references do not describe or suggest a tip that is positioned within a channel in a released state and configured to automatically rotate the locking grip when contacted by a spar, nor do they disclose compressing a contact surface against the spar as a direct result of this automatic rotation. Instead, the prior art relies on user-controlled locking actions, which fundamentally differ from the claimed automatic engagement. Absent any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to provide such an automatic locking mechanism actuated by seating the table top segment, the claimed feature represents a non-obvious structural and functional distinction over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Arguments:
Argument #1: Claims 1 - 6 and 8 - 11 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Weil in view of Martin. In response, independent claims 1 and 8 have been amended to clarify that the locking mechanisms automatically rotate to the locked position and grip the spars as the table top segment is seated over the spars to thereby automatically secure the table top segment to the spars. Applicant submit that this is neither taught nor suggested by Weil or Martin.
Argument #2: In particular, Weil discloses a medical procedure table with spars that support table top segments that slide longitudinally. However, the table top segments cannot be detached from the spars, as acknowledged on page 7 of the Office Action.
Argument #3: Martin has been cited to provide this missing element. Martin's medical procedure table has a number of flat segments for supporting a wheelchair. One of these flat segments ("seat section") 282 is shown detached in figure 30 of Martin's application. But, nothing in Martin teaches or suggests a locking mechanism that automatically secures the flat segment to the medical procedure table as it is seated over spars, as required by all of the present claims.
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding Argument #1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Notably, the Final Rejection filed includes a 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of anticipation over Weil for Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-11. Specifically, independent Claims 1 and 8 are both taught with this primary reference. Weil as shown in Fig. 9, includes the locking mechanism 222 include a locking grip 232 and is shown to be rotatable between a released position in Fig. 10 as well as a locked position in Fig. 9. When in the locked position, the locking grip 222 is compressed against a spar 24 thus, automatically securing the table top segment to the spar. Furthermore, the utilization of such lock assemblies is to control the locking and unlocking of the deck 14 relative to the base. Such that each table top segment is seated over the spars, respectively. Thus automatically securing the table top segment to the spar through such indirect yet seated over top of the spars.
Regarding Argument #2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Notably, Fig. 12 of the prior art of Weil indicates that a table top segment of the plurality of table top segments is configured to detach, as claimed. Noting the reproduced image of Fig. 12 from Weil, below.
PNG
media_image4.png
423
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Argument #3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Martin is no longer being used to teach, disclose or render obvious the instant invention. The grounds of rejection is shown to be anticipated under 'Weil' (US 20020029419 A1).
Conclusion
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 MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673