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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 03/12/2026. Claims 21-41 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Porter et al. (U.S. 2010/0089411 A1).
Claim 41, Porter teaches:
An operating table (Porter, Fig. 1) comprising:
a stand (Porter, Fig. 1: 14);
a column supported on the stand (Porter, Fig. 1: 16);
a patient support surface supported on the column (Porter, Figs. 2-8: 20, Paragraph [0050], The patient support system 20 includes a plurality of mounting sheets 36 that correspond in size and shape to upper surface 12 or upper surface segments 13 (see Porter, Fig. 1). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the column 16 supports both upper surface 12 and upper surface segments 13.); and
a load sensor assembly (Porter, Figs. 7 and 8, The combination of computer 110 and each air supply subsystem 52 forms a load sensor assembly.) comprising a plurality of load sensors (Porter, Fig. 7: 120) configured to measure at least one variable from which a load acting on the load sensor assembly can be determined (Porter, Paragraphs [0059-0060], The at least one pressure sensor 120 measures the pressure, i.e. at least one variable, under loaded conditions. The load includes a patient, a physician, and/or other operating room personnel and the like (see Porter, Paragraph [0058]).), the load sensor assembly being:
between the stand and the column; or
integrated in the column; or
adjacent to an interface between the patient support surface and the column (Porter, Figs. 2-8: 20, The patient support system 20, which includes the elements of the load sensor assembly, is integrated onto upper surface 12 and/or upper surface segments 13, which is adjacent to the portion underneath the upper surface 12 and/or upper surface segments 13 (see Porter, Fig. 1), which is equivalent to an interface between the patient support system 20 and the column 16.).
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 21-29 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (U.S. 2010/0089411 A1).
Claim 21, Porter teaches:
An operating table (Porter, Fig. 1), comprising a load sensor assembly (Porter, Figs. 7 and 8, The combination of computer 110 and each air supply subsystem 52 forms a load sensor assembly.) arranged between at least two parts of the operating table that are immovable relative to each other (Porter, Paragraphs [0036] and [0050], Each air supply subsystem 52 is associated with an air cell 30, and each air cell 30 may be affixed to a mounting sheet 36, which is then dimensioned or sized to corresponding to the upper surface 12 or the upper surface segments 13 of the operating room table 10. The air cells 30 may then be covered by a covering (see Porter, Paragraph [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the covering and mounting sheet 36 to be immovable relative to each other.), the load sensor assembly comprising:
a plurality of load sensors (Porter, Fig. 7: 120), each of the plurality of load sensors configured to measure a respective force acting on the respective load sensor, the respective forces acting on the load sensors collectively defining a load value indicative of a load acting on the load sensor assembly (Porter, Paragraphs [0059-0060], The at least one pressure sensor 120 measures the pressure, i.e. at least one variable, under loaded conditions. The load includes a patient, a physician, and/or other operating room personnel and the like (see Porter, Paragraph [0058]).
Porter does not explicitly teach:
At least two parts of the operating table that are immovable relative to each other except for physical deformation of the load sensors.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the air cells 30 to be physical deformable based on a load applied to the air cells 30. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results. For example, when a patient lies down or is positioned onto the no-air-loss patient support surface (see Porter, Paragraph [0016]), the support system adjusts the air within the support surface to compensate for the presence of the patient. Once the adjustment is made, air will not need to be added and the patient will not move or be moved during the operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the support surface, i.e. the air cells 30, would physically deform upon the patient lying down or being positioned.
Claim 22, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 21, wherein the load sensor assembly is integrated into the operating table (Porter, Figs. 7 and 8, Paragraph [0050], Each air supply subsystem 52 is associated with an air cell 30, and each air cell 30 may be affixed to a mounting sheet 36, which is then dimensioned or sized to corresponding to the upper surface 12 or the upper surface segments 13 of the operating room table 10, which represent parts of the operating table 10 (see Porter, Fig. 1: 12, 13). Thus, the collection of the plurality of upper surface segments 13, as a whole, encompasses the entire length of operating table (see Porter, Fig. 1).) such that the entire load is transmitted through the load sensor assembly (Porter, Paragraphs [0058-0060], When the operating room table 10 is in a loaded condition, the totality of pressure sensors 120 are able to capture the pressure of the source of the load, e.g. the patient.).
Claim 23, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 21, wherein the at least two parts of the operating table are immovable relative to each other except for the physical deformation of the load sensors which is no more than 3 millimeters (Porter, Paragraph [0033], It is noted that the term “physical deformation” is interpreted as the physical shape of the pressure sensor 120. Thus, when the pressure sensor 120 is incorporated with the surface segments 13, the pressure sensors 120 move relative to each other when the surface segments 13 move relative to each other. Additionally, the upper surface segments may be moved to various positions, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to limit the various positions to be within 3 millimeters of each other through routine experimentation. The purpose of the upper surface 12, which includes the surface segments 13, is to support the patient, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a need to limit the spacing of the surfaces segments 13 in order to support patients of different size and/or for different procedures performed by the surgeon.).
Claim 24, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of load sensors are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to a first axis and mirror-symmetrically with respect to a second axis, the first and the second axes are aligned orthogonally to one another, and the mirror-symmetrically arranged load sensors are aligned in the same direction (Porter, Fig. 7: 120 and Fig 8, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the orientation of the pressure sensors 120 to be mirror-symmetric to a first axis and a second axis, wherein the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other. See MPEP 2144.04. For example, if four pressure sensors are rectangular and arranged horizontally in a line, the two pressure sensors on the left are mirror-symmetrical with the two pressure sensors on the right via a vertical center line axis. The rectangular pressure sensors are also themselves mirror-symmetrical to themselves via a horizontal center line axis. The Examiner notes Applicant’s Figs. 5B and 5C, wherein the load sensors (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b) are arranged in relation to two axis, 210 and 212. The load sensors, however, are not all mirror-symmetrical along both axis to all the other load sensors. It is also noted that the Figs. 5B and 5C are indicative that more than one configuration is allowed.).
Claim 25, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of the load sensors are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to a first axis and mirror-symmetrically with respect to a second axis, the first and the second axes are aligned orthogonally to one another (Porter, Fig. 7: 120 and Fig 8, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the orientation of the pressure sensors 120 to be mirror-symmetric to a first axis and a second axis, wherein the first and second axis are orthogonal to each other. See MPEP 2144.04. For example, if four pressure sensors are rectangular and arranged horizontally in a line, the two pressure sensors on the left are mirror-symmetrical with the two pressure sensors on the right via a vertical center line axis. The rectangular pressure sensors are also themselves mirror-symmetrical to themselves via a horizontal center line axis. The Examiner notes Applicant’s Figs. 5B and 5C, wherein the load sensors (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b) are arranged in relation to two axis, 210 and 212. The load sensors, however, are not all mirror-symmetrical along both axis to all the other load sensors. It is also noted that the Figs. 5B and 5C are indicative that more than one configuration is allowed.), and at least some of the load sensors are in a grid arrangement in a common plane, the grid arrangement having at least two load sensors on each side, the common plane being between the at least two parts of the operating table (Porter, Fig. 7: 120 and Fig 8, In the modification of the pressure sensor 120 arrangements, the pressure sensors 120 would be on the same 2-dimentional plane established by the surface of the table.), and the load sensors in the grid arrangement and the at least two parts of the operating table are fixedly fastened to one another (Porter, Fig. 7: 120 and Fig 8, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the pressure sensors 120 to be fastened in their respective air supply subsystem 52, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the plurality of upper surface segments 13, once moved to the various positions to orient and locate a patient as the surgeon desires (see Porter, Paragraph [0033]), to be prevented from moving further.).
Claim 26, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 21, wherein the plurality of load sensors are arranged in a single common plane between the at least two parts of the operating table (Porter, Figs. 7 and 8, The pressure sensors 120 are incorporated into air supply subsystems 52, which are laid out on a single plan, as depicted in Fig. 8.).
Claim 27, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 21, further comprising a load determination unit (Porter, Fig. 7: 110) coupled to the load sensor assembly (Porter, Paragraph [0045], The computer 110 is operatively in communication with at least one pressure sensor 120.), the load determination unit configured to determine the load value based on the respective forces acting on the load sensors (Porter, Paragraphs [0058-0060]), the load value comprising at least one of the following:
a measurement load comprising the load acting on the load sensor assembly, and/or the center of gravity of the measurement load,
an active load comprising a load caused by people and components not associated with the operating table and external forces and acts on the operating table, and/or the center of gravity of the active load (Porter, Paragraphs [0058-0060], The computer 110 continues to receive input from the at least one pressure sensor 120 when the at least one pressure sensor 120 is under load. The load includes forces exerted by a patient, a physician and/or other operating room personnel and the like, which collectively is functionally equivalent to both a measurement load and an active load.), and
a total load comprising the measurement load and a load caused by components which are associated with the operating table and are located below the load sensor assembly, and/or the center of gravity of the total load.
Claim 28, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 27, further comprising a safety unit coupled to the load determination unit and configured to generate a safety signal based on the load value from the load determination unit, the safety signal indicative of whether the operating table is in a safety-critical state (Porter, Paragraph [0060], The inputs from the at least one pressure sensor 120 that are received by computer 110, i.e. the current pressure sensor readings that are indicative of the pressure sensed under load, may be viewed on a display or monitor, wherein the display or monitor are functionally equivalent to a safety unit (106) and the inputs that are displayed are functionally equivalent to safety signals.).
Claim 29, Porter further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 28, wherein the safety unit is configured to activate a safety action in response to the safety signal being indicative of the operating table being in the safety-critical state, the safety action comprising:
an acoustic and/or visual warning signal (Porter, Paragraph [0060], The inputs are displayed on a display, i.e. a visual warning signal. It is noted by the Examiner that the plurality of “and/or” and “or” statements are interpretable as all being “or” statements.), and/or
a warning signal generated in text form, and/or
a slowdown or stoppage of movement of the operating table, and/or
a blockage of at least one functionality of the operating table.
Claim 40, Porter further teaches:
A method for operating the operating table according to claim 21, the method comprising:
measuring, using the load sensor assembly, the respective forces acting on the plurality of load sensors, and
determining from the respective forces the load value indicative of the load acting on the load sensor assembly (Porter, Paragraphs [0059-0060], The at least one pressure sensor 120 measures the pressure, i.e. at least one variable, under loaded conditions. The load includes a patient, a physician, and/or other operating room personnel and the like (see Porter, Paragraph [0058]).).
Claims 30 and 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (U.S. 2010/0089411 A1) in view of Daley (AU 2015224374 B2).
Claim 30, Porter teaches:
The operating table according to claim 28.
Porter does not specifically teach:
Wherein the safety unit comprises a tipping prevention unit configured to generate, based on the total load and/or the center of gravity of the total load, a tipping safety signal indicative of whether there is a risk that the operating table will tip over.
Daley teaches:
A tipping prevention unit configured to generate, based on the total load and/or the center of gravity of the total load, a tipping safety signal indicative of whether there is a risk that the operating table will tip over (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is functionally equivalent to a tipping prevention unit (114), because the overload indicator 27 indicates whether the surgical table is at risk of tipping over (see Daley, Page 3, Lines 30-33).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Porter by integrating the teaching of an overload detection means, as taught by Daley.
The motivation would be to provide an advanced warning that the patient or total weight cannot be supported by the table top for the safety of the patient (see Daley, Page 10, Lines 27-32).
Claim 33, Porter teaches:
The operating table according to claim 28.
Porter does not specifically teach:
Wherein the safety unit comprises an overload protection unit configured to generate, based on a defined load, an overload protection signal indicative of whether there is a risk of overloading the operating table and/or at least one component of the operating table, the defined load comprising the measured load, the active load, or the total load, and/or the center of gravity of the defined load.
Daley teaches:
An overload protection unit configured to generate, based on a defined load, an overload protection signal indicative of whether there is a risk of overloading the operating table and/or at least one component of the operating table, the defined load comprising the measured load, the active load, or the total load, and/or the center of gravity of the defined load (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is functionally equivalent to a tipping prevention unit (114), because the overload indicator 27 indicates whether the surgical table is at risk of tipping over (see Daley, Page 3, Lines 30-33).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Porter by integrating the teaching of an overload detection means, as taught by Daley.
The motivation would be to provide an advanced warning that the patient or total weight cannot be supported by the table top for the safety of the patient (see Daley, Page 10, Lines 27-32).
Claim 34, Porter in view of Daley further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 33, wherein the overload protection unit is configured to compare the defined load to at least one predetermined overload threshold value and generate the overload protection signal indicative of a risk of overloading if the defined load exceeds the at least one overload threshold value, the at least one overload threshold value being specific to the operating table and/or the at least one component (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, For example, if the hydraulic fluid pressure in the hydraulic actuator 13 has reached a chosen set pressure, the overload indicator 27 may be emitted.).
Claim 35, Porter in view of Daley further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 33, wherein the operating table comprises a patient support surface (Porter, Fig. 1: 12) comprising a main support surface section and at least one secondary support surface section detachably connected to the main support surface section, the at least one component being the at least one secondary support surface section (Porter, Fig. 1: 12, 13, Paragraph [0033], The plurality of upper surface segments 13 can be moved to various positions to orient and locate a patient as the surgeon desires. Separating the segments 13, e.g. the segments 13 to the left and right of upper surface 12 in Fig. 1, from upper surface 12 is functionally equivalent to the segments 13 being “detachably connected” to the upper surface 12.).
Claim 36, Porter in view of Daley further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 35, wherein the at least one secondary support surface section comprises a plurality of secondary support surface sections (Porter, Fig. 1: 13 and Daley, Fig. 1: 4) connected to each other and/or to the main support surface section to form a patient support surface configuration (Porter, Fig. 1: 13, In the combination of Porter in view of Daley, the upper surface segments 13 are not moved such that they are connected to each other via upper surface 12.), and an overload threshold value is specified for the patient support surface configuration, the overload protection unit being configured to compare the defined load to the overload threshold value of the configuration and generate the overload protection signal indicative of a risk of overload if the defined load exceeds the overload threshold value (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is functionally equivalent to a tipping prevention unit (114), because the overload indicator 27 indicates whether the surgical table is at risk of tipping over (see Daley, Page 3, Lines 30-33).).
Claim 37, Porter in view of Daley further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 35, wherein at least part of the patient support surface comprises a plurality of areas and an overload threshold value is specified for each of the plurality of areas (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is capable of detecting an overload for the entirety of the table, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the same pressure value to be applied to each portion of the table, e.g. elements 4.), the overload protection unit configured to:
compare the defined load to the overload threshold value of the area of the plurality of areas where the center of gravity of the defined load is located; and
generate the overload protection signal indicative of a risk of overload if the defined load exceeds the overload threshold value of the area of the plurality of areas where the center of gravity of the defined load is located (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is functionally equivalent to a tipping prevention unit (114), because the overload indicator 27 indicates whether the surgical table is at risk of tipping over (see Daley, Page 3, Lines 30-33). It is noted that the presence of a weight, e.g. a patient, would define the center of gravity or the weight to be located at the location of the weight, e.g. on a single section 4.).
Claim 38, Porter in view of Daley further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 35, wherein a respective overload threshold value is specified for each point of at least part of the patient support surface (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is capable of detecting an overload for the entirety of the table, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the same pressure value to be applied to each portion of the table, e.g. elements 4.), the overload protection unit configured to:
compare the defined load to the overload threshold value of the point of the patient support surface where the center of gravity of the defined load is located; and
generate the overload protection signal indicative of a risk of overload if the defined load exceeds the overload threshold value of the point of the patient support surface where the center of gravity of the defined load is located (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is functionally equivalent to a tipping prevention unit (114), because the overload indicator 27 indicates whether the surgical table is at risk of tipping over (see Daley, Page 3, Lines 30-33). It is noted that the presence of a weight, e.g. a patient, would define the center of gravity or the weight to be located at the location of the weight, e.g. on a single section 4.).
Claim 39, Porter in view of Daley further teaches:
The operating table according to claim 33, wherein the operating table comprises at least one drive, the overload protection unit configured to:
determine a load acting on the at least one drive based on the measurement load and/or the center of gravity of the measurement load;
compare the determined load to at least one specified overload threshold value; and
generate the overload protection signal indicative of a risk of overloading if the determined load exceeds the at least one overload threshold value (Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33, The overload detection means is functionally equivalent to a tipping prevention unit (114), because the overload indicator 27 indicates whether the surgical table is at risk of tipping over (see Daley, Page 3, Lines 30-33). They hydraulic actuator 13 is one component responsible for adjusting the surgical table, and is therefore functionally equivalent to a drive (see Daley, Page 10, Lines 5-16).).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (U.S. 2010/0089411 A1) in view of Daley (AU 2015224374 B2) in view of Meiswinkel (U.S. 11,774,986 B1).
Claim 31, Porter in view of Daley teaches:
The operating table according to claim 30.
Porter in view of Daley does not specifically teach:
Wherein the tipping prevention unit is configured to:
determine a residual tipping torque for at least one tipping point based on the total load and/or the center of gravity of the total load,
compare the residual tipping torque to a predetermined residual tipping torque threshold value, and
generate the tipping safety signal indicative of a risk of tipping if the determined residual tipping torque falls below the residual tipping torque threshold value.
Meiswinkel teaches:
Determining an expected tipping moment being below a threshold (Meiswinkel, Col. 12, Lines 52-67, The system determines if an expected tipping moment is below a threshold, wherein the tipping moment is a measure of force, i.e. torque, that makes the autonomous vehicle unstable. Thus, the presence of a tipping moment is functionally equivalent to a residual tipping torque, because the presence of a tipping moment is indicative that the forces that would cause the autonomous vehicle to tip are potentially greater than the forces to counteract the autonomous vehicle to tip. In response to determining that the tipping moment is below a threshold, the autonomous vehicle determines that electromagnetic stabilization force is not needed, which is indicative of a risk of tipping, i.e. a low risk of tipping. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that a tipping moment relative to the threshold would also indicate that a stabilization force would be required, which would also be indicative of a risk of tipping. The tipping moment is determined based on the total weight and movement of the containers on top of the autonomous vehicle, i.e. based on total load.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Porter in view of Delay to generate a signal (see Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33) in response to a determined tipping moment, as taught by Meiswinkel.
The motivation would be to prevent a enable an electromagnetic stabilization force to counteract or otherwise offset the tipping moment (see Meiswinkel, Col. 13, Lines 18-33).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. (U.S. 2010/0089411 A1) in view of Daley (AU 2015224374 B2) in view of Lussi et al. (U.S. 5,564,662).
Claim 32, Porter in view of Daley teaches:
The operating table according to claim 30.
Porter in view of Daley does not specifically teach:
Wherein at least one virtual line is specified extending through at least one tipping point and enclosing a specified stability angle with a specified normal vector, the tipping prevention unit being configured to generate the tipping safety signal indicative of a risk of tipping if the center of gravity of the total load extends through the at least one virtual line.
Lussi teaches:
Wherein at least one virtual line is specified extending through at least one tipping point (Lussi, Fig. 2: 46, 48, 66, 68, Primary tip lines 46 and 48 and secondary tip lines 66 and 68 represent areas where forces applied would cause the table to tip.) and enclosing a specified stability angle with a specified normal vector (Lussi, Fig. 2: 46, 48, 66, 68, The intersections of the lines 46, 48, 66, 68 create angles therebetween, which are equivalent to stability angles.), wherein a risk of tipping if the center of gravity of the total load extends through the at least one virtual line (Lussi, Col. 3, Lines 56-67, A particularly large force applied to one of the tip lines may cause the table to tip.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Porter in view of Delay to generate a signal (see Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33) in response to a determined force, as taught by Lussi.
The motivation would be to counter tipping forces in order to prevent the tipping of a surgical table (see Lussi, Col. 4, Lines 3-31).
As per the limitation of the tipping prevention unit being configured to generate the tipping safety signal indicative of a risk of tipping, the combination of Porter in view of Daley in view of Lussi teaches the step of generating a safety signal (see Porter, Paragraph [0060]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the cited references fail to teach each and every limitations of new claims 21-41, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the rejection above.
In response to applicant's argument that the Meiswinkel reference is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the combination of Porter in view of Daley disclosed the risk of a table tipping (see Daley, Page 5, Lines 22-33), and thus the solution, as disclosed in Meiswinkel (see Meiswinkel, Col. 12, Lines 52-67) addresses the potential of objects or devices that have the potential to tip over, which is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, i.e. “total load”, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, claim 27, as currently presented, defines the total load as “the measurement load and a load caused by components”, and the components are located below the load sensor assembly, and/or the center of gravity of the total load”, which does not necessarily require the total load to be below the load sensor assembly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights