CTFR 18/471,173 CTFR 96949 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 7—20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1—6 have been withdrawn. This communication is a Final Rejection. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 09/20/2023 has been acknowledged by the Office. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of C laims 7—20 in the reply filed on 07/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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: 07-08-aia AIA 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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 7 is/ a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 1) as be ing anti cipated by U.S Pa tent Application 2021/0007915 A1 to DeLuca (DeLuca). As pe r claim 7, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: A method for controlling a motion-assisted patient table (68—Fig.14; para [0084]) , comprising: detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in a docked state (72—Fig.14 & 120—Fig.28; para [0121]: auto dock feature examiner note) ; Note: It may be appreciated that the dock state may be interpreted as when the patient support is in acceptable proximity to RF ID tag. and responsive to detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state, disabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (76—Fig.14; para [0084]: algorithm 68 disables powered movement of drive assistance78 based on RFID dock state 74, 76, 82) while enabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0084] activated one or more motors based on signals) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 8, 9 & 11 —14 & 16 is/are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Paten t Application 2021/0007915 A1 to DeLuca (DeLuca) in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0359942 A1 to Koerth (Koerth hereafter). As per cl aim 8, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7, wherein a brake of the motion-assisted patient table is engaged responsive to a user input (para [0088] brake engaged via user input). As per claim 9, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7, further comprising, while the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state, receiving a request for drive assistance and not providing the drive assistance responsive to the request (para [0084] when not activated, a user's manipulation of the force sensors 52, or other types of user inputs, will not result in any operation of motors) , and while the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state, a request for lift assistance is received, and lift assistance is provided responsive to the request for lift assistance (para [0084]: when activated, a user’s manipulation of force sensors 52 will cause movement controller 50 to activate one or more of motors 54 and 56 in a manner that is dependent upon the specific user input signals that are received signals include attempts to lift system). As per claim 11, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7, further comprising: detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in an undocked state (para [0121]) ; while enabling the drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0122]) ; receiving a drive assistance request while the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state (para [0123]) ; and responsive to the drive assistance request while the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state, actuating a drive motor of the motion-assisted patient table to provide table pushing assistance or table pulling assistance (para [0123]). DeLuca does not teach responsive to detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state, disabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table. Koerth teaches responsive to detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state, disabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0027]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure if the power connection is absent, it is not possible for the drive motor to be actuated as taught in Koerth (para [0027]). As per claim 12, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7, wherein the vertical assistance for the motion- assisted patient table is provided responsive to detecting a user input at handle of the motion-assisted patient table (para [0128]), DeLuca does not teach: and wherein providing the vertical assistance includes operating a lift motor to apply torque to assist in lifting or lowering the motion-assisted patient table responsive to the user input while the motion-assisted patient table is docked. Koerth teaches : and wherein providing the vertical assistance includes operating a lift motor to apply torque to assist in lifting or lowering the motion-assisted patient table (10—Fig.2; para [0023]: power supply coupled to lift motor 10) responsive to the user input while the motion-assisted patient table is docked (10—Fig.2; para [0026]: lift motor responsive to user input). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table and providing the vertical assistance of operating a lift motor to apply torque to assist in lifting or lowering the motion-assisted patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure and the lifting mechanism is moved exclusively by the drive motor when the patient table is docked as taught in Koerth (para [0027]). As per claim 13, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7. DeLuca does not teach, wherein enabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table includes directing power from a power source to a lift motor of the motion-assisted patient table. Koerth teaches , wherein enabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table includes directing power from a power source (para [0023]) to a lift motor of the motion-assisted patient table (10—Fig.2; para [0023]: power supply coupled to lift motor 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure if the power connection is absent, it is not possible for the drive motor to be actuated as taught in Koerth (para [0027]). As per claim 14, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7, further comprising: detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in an undocked state (para [0121]) while enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0122]); receiving a user brake request while the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state with the brake disengaged (82—Fig.14; para [0088]) ; and responsive to receiving the user brake request while the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state (84—Fig.14; para [0088]) , engaging the brake of the motion-assisted patient table (86—Fig.14; para [0088]) . DeLuca does not teach and a brake of the motion-assisted patient table is disengaged; responsive to detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state and the brake of the motion-assisted patient table is disengaged, disabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table, preventing the drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table, and enabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table. Koerth teaches , further comprising: detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in an undocked state (para [0011]) and a brake of the motion-assisted patient table is disengaged (para [0026]) ; responsive to detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state and the brake of the motion-assisted patient table is disengaged, disabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0011]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure if the power connection is absent, it is not possible for the drive motor to be actuated as taught in Koerth (para [0027]). DeLuca (as modified by Koerth) does not teach preventing the drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table, and enabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table. Trimble teaches : preventing the drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table, and enabling the vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0118]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and Trimble (directed to a patient support with a dock, and enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while disabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor with a dock, and enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while disabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure such that the base may be moved between the plurality of base configurations as taught in Trimble (para [0118]). As per claim 16, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7. DeLuca does not teach, further comprising: receiving a vertical assistance request while the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state; and actuating a lift motor of the motion-assisted patient table to provide table lifting or table lowering assistance responsive to the vertical assistance request. Koerth teaches , further comprising: receiving a vertical assistance request while the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state (10—Fig.2; para [0026] lift motor actuated via actuating device) ; and actuating a lift motor of the motion-assisted patient table to provide table lifting or table lowering assistance responsive to the vertical assistance request (para [0025]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure if the power connection is absent, it is not possible for the drive motor to be actuated as taught in Koerth (para [0027]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 10 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S Patent Application 2021/0007915 A1 to DeLuca in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0359942 A1 to Koerth in view of U.S Patent Application 2020/0046586 A1 to Furman (Furman hereafter). A s per claim 10, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7, and wherein detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state and not directing power to a drive motor used for the drive assistance (para [0084]). DeLuca does not teach: wherein a system for controlling the motion-assisted patient table comprises a single battery, wherein the single battery is configured to only direct power to one of a drive motor and a lift motor at a time includes directing power from the single battery to a lift motor used for the vertical assistance not directing power from the single battery to the drive motor. Koerth teaches : includes directing power to a lift motor used for the vertical assistance (10—Fig.2; para [0023]: power supply coupled to lift motor 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure if the power connection is absent, it is not possible for the drive motor to be actuated as taught in Koerth (para [0027]). DeLuca as modified does not teach: wherein a system for controlling the motion-assisted patient table comprises a single battery, wherein the single battery is configured to only direct power to one of a drive motor and a lift motor at a time . Furman teaches: wherein a system for controlling the motion-assisted patient table comprises a single battery, wherein the single battery is configured to only direct power to one of a drive motor and a lift motor at a time (para [0100];Claim 4 : lift and motors can be used at different times ) includes directing power from the single battery to a lift motor used for the vertical assistance not directing power from the single battery to the drive motor (para [0100]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and Furman (directed to a patient support including a battery capable of suppling power to a lift or motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure a battery for powering the plurality of components as taught in Furman (claim 1) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 15 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S Patent Application 2021/0007915 A1 to DeLuca in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0359942 A1 to Koerth in further view of WO 2023027770 A1 to Trimble et. al (Trimble hereafter). A s per claim 15, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 7. DeLuca does not teach, further comprising: detecting a request to undock the motion-assisted patient table; and responsive to detecting the request to undock the motion-assisted patient table, releasing the motion-assisted patient table from a dock, and enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while disabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table. Trimble teaches , further comprising: detecting a request to undock the motion-assisted patient table (para [0118]) ; and responsive to detecting the request to undock the motion-assisted patient table, releasing the motion-assisted patient table from a dock, and enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (156B—Fig.2; para [0118]) while disabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table (para [0118]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and Trimble (directed to a patient support with a dock, and enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while disabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor with a dock, and enabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while disabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure such that the base may be moved between the plurality of base configurations as taught in Trimble (para [0118]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 17—20 is/are rejecte d under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Appli cation 2021/0007915 A1 to DeLuca (DeLuca) in view of U.S Patent Application 2006/0167356 A1 to Everett et. al (Everett hereafter). As per claim 17, D eLuca (as modified) teaches: A system for controlling a motion-assisted patient table (68—Fig.14; para [0084]) , comprising: a table top (28—Fig.1; para [0059]) ; a support coupling (26—Fig.1; para [0059]) the table top to a base (22—Fig.1; para [0059]) ; one or more wheels coupled to the base (24—Fig.1; para [0059]); a drive motor configured to provide torque to the one or more wheels (56—Fig.4; para [0067]); a brake (para [0088]:brake) ; a plurality of force sensors (52—Fig.2; para [0067]); and a controller (52—Fig.2; para [0067]) comprising instructions in non-transitory memory (para [0122]) , the instructions executable to: in a first condition, responsive to detecting that the motion-assisted patient table is in a docked state, disable the drive motor (76—Fig.14; para [0084]: algorithm 68 disables powered movement of drive assistance78 based on RFID dock state 74, 76, 82) ; and in a third condition, responsive to the indication that the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state and detecting that the brake is engaged, disable the drive motor (para [0088]: brake is engaged drive motor is disabled) . DeLuca does not teach: a lift motor configured to extend and retract the support; a single battery coupled to the drive motor and the lift motor; and enable the lift motor; in a second condition, responsive to an indication that the motion-assisted patient table is in an undocked state and detecting that the brake is disengaged, enable the drive motor, [responsive to the indication that the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state] and disable the lift motor and enable the lift motor. Everett teaches: a lift motor configured to extend and retract the support (154—Fig.4; para [0037]) ; a single battery coupled to the drive motor and the lift motor (24—Fig.2; para [0037]) ; and enable the lift motor (para [0037]) ; in a second condition, responsive to an indication that the motion-assisted patient table is in an undocked state and detecting that the brake is disengaged (208—Fig.9; para [0047]) , enable the drive motor, [responsive to the indication that the motion-assisted patient table is in the undocked state] and disable the lift motor and enable the lift motor (208—Fig.9; para [0041]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Everett (directed to a docking assembly connected to a movable table that docks the table to an imaging apparatus provided with a motor and docking undocking state detection) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the patient support to remains biased and secured in the docked position as taught in Everett (para [0045]). DeLuca does not teach: lift motor, wherein the single battery is configured to only direct power to one of the drive motor and the lift motor at a time. Furman teaches: lift motor, wherein the single battery is configured to only direct power to one of the drive motor and the lift motor at a time (para [0100];Claim 4 : lift and motors can be used at different times). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Koerth (directed to a patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor) and Furman (directed to a patient support including a battery capable of suppling power to a lift or motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table including a power supply capable of directing power to a lift motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure a battery for powering the plurality of components as taught in Furman (claim 1). As per claim 18, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The system of claim 17. DeLuca does not teach, wherein the motion-assisted patient table is detected to be in the docked state responsive to determining a docking latch of the motion- assisted patient table is in an engaged position, and wherein the motion-assisted patient table is detected to be in the undocked state responsive to determining the docking latch of the motion-assisted patient table is in a disengaged position. Everett teaches , wherein the motion-assisted patient table is detected to be in the docked state responsive to determining a docking latch of the motion- assisted patient table is in an engaged position (Claim 9) , and wherein the motion-assisted patient table is detected to be in the undocked state responsive to determining the docking latch of the motion-assisted patient table is in a disengaged position (Claim 9). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Everett (directed to a docking assembly determining a docking latch of the motion- assisted patient table is in an engaged or disengaged position) and Furman (directed to a patient support including a battery capable of suppling power to a lift or motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a docking assembly determining a docking latch of the motion- assisted patient table is in an engaged or disengaged position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to move the patient positioner into the docked position based on latch status as taught in Everett (Claim 9). As per claim 19, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The system of claim 17. DeLuca does not teach, wherein the motion-assisted patient table is docked to a medical scanner in the docked state, and wherein the motion-assisted patient table is detected to be in the docked state based on an output received from the medical scanner. Everett teaches : wherein the motion-assisted patient table is docked to a medical scanner in the docked state (para [0031]) , and wherein the motion-assisted patient table is detected to be in the docked state based on an output received from the medical scanner (para [0052]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined DeLuca (directed to a patient table provided with a drive assist method to raise lower and move the patient table) and Everett (directed to a docking assembly determining a docking latch of the motion- assisted patient table is in an engaged or disengaged position) and Furman (directed to a patient support including a battery capable of suppling power to a lift or motor) and arrived at a patient table provided with a docking assembly determining a docking latch of the motion- assisted patient table is in an engaged or disengaged position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to detachably secure the movable patient table with the magnetic resonance imaging apparatus as taught in Everett (para [0031]). As per claim 20, DeLuca (as modified) teaches: The system of claim 17, the instructions further executable to: in a fourth condition, simultaneously allow vertical adjustment via the lift motor and drive assistance via the drive motor responsive to a user force input (para [0084] activated one or more motors based on signals) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s Arguments: Regarding the Non-Final Rejection filed on 02/17/2026, the Applicant argues, Regarding Claim 7, No disclosure or suggestion can be found in DeLuca of "disabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while enabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table," as claimed in claim '7. Further, no teaching or suggestion can be found in DeLuca to provide vertical assistance at all. Regarding Claim 17, Applicant notes claim 10 includes similar limitations as discussed above with regard to amended claim 17 as to "wherein a system for controlling the motion-assisted patient table comprises a single battery, wherein the single battery is configured to only direct power to one of a drive motor and a lift motor at a time." Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claim 10 be withdrawn for at least similar reasons as presented above with regard to claim 17. As discussed above in connection to claim 17, the Office acknowledges DeLuca fails to teach the claimed single battery. Everett is thus cited to cure such deficiencies of DeLuca. See Office action at page 14. However, Everett fails to disclose or suggest battery (24) as being coupled to a drive motor and lift motor as claimed. Applicant thus further submits it follows that Everett fails to disclose or suggest "wherein detecting the motion-assisted patient table is in the docked state includes directing power from the single battery to the lift motor used for the vertical assistance and not directing power from the single battery to the drive motor used for the drive assistance," as required in amended claim 10. Examiner's Response to Arguments: The examiner respectfully disagrees to the Applicant’s Arguments for the following reasons 1) Regarding claim 7, the examiner relies on the teachings of DeLuca to teach disabling drive assistance for the motion-assisted patient table while enabling vertical assistance for the motion-assisted patient table," because when activated, a users manipulation of force sensors 52 will cause movement controller 50 to activate one or more of motors 54 and 56 which can move the patient support. 2) Regarding claims 10 & 17, the examiner relies on the teachings of U.S Patent Application 2021/0007915 A1 to DeLuca in view of U.S Patent Application 2014/0359942 A1 to Koerth in view of U.S Patent Application 2020/0046586 A1 to Furman and highlights that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to ensure a battery for powering the plurality of components as taught in Furman (claim 1) 3) Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S Patent Application 2008/0235873 A1 to Farrooqui discloses A table drive system comprising a first drive assembly configured for moving a support table in a first direction, a second drive assembly configured for moving the support table in a second direction and a drive motor coupled to the first drive assembly and the second drive assembly. U.S Patent Application 2018/0329422 A1 to Biber discloses a patient support device has a bed, a travel mechanism designed to move the patient support device, a control computer and a sensor, which detects at least one environmental parameter of the patient support device. 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 Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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. /D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 05/31/2026 /JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 2 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 3 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 4 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 5 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 6 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 7 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 8 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 9 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 10 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 11 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 12 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 13 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 14 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 15 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 16 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 17 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 18 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 19 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 20 Art Unit: 3673 Application/Control Number: 18/471,173 Page 21 Art Unit: 3673
Prosecution Insights