DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 3/16/2026. Claims 23-39 are pending. Claims 23-39 are rejected.
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 .
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 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 of this title, 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 23-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,351,678 to Borders in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0323514 to Thienphrapa et al. (“Thienphrapa”).
Claim 23. A medical system comprising: an operating table (Borders, Fig. 2), the operating table comprising a computer system (Borders discloses in the Abstract, “processor is configured to command the frame and mattress to move”, also , Fig. 8 #106; Borders also discloses a computer system at #46 in Fig. 1); a remote control (Borders, Figs. 1 and 9, #40; column 7, lines 43-50 discloses both wired and wireless configurations) for remotely controlling operation of the operating table, the remote control comprising a screen (Borders, Fig. 9, #116) and being remote from the computer system (Borders, Fig. 1, #40 is remote from computer system #46); the computer system and the remote control being configured to communicate with each other via a communication interface (Borders, Fig. 8, #112 and column 9, lines 17-31); the computer system being configured to provide via the communication interface a graphical user interface to the remote control (Borders, Fig. 9, #116 discloses a GUI; as best understood from Applicant’s remarks and claim amendments, Applicant is attempting to claim an architecture in which a “remote control…being remote from the computer system…[which provides] a graphical user interface to the remote control”; this is commonly known as a “dumb terminal”; Borders does not discuss the use of a “dumb terminal”, however the use of this type of computing architecture is well known in the prior art; at least at taught by Thienphrapa, which discloses a similar surgical bed system and discloses the use of a dumb terminal in at least paragraph [0083], and states that “the user input device 770 may be operable for interacting with the processor 710 including enabling interaction within a [user interface]”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Borders with a dumb terminal architecture in order to provide for centralized storage of data, thereby improving data security, as well as providing cost reductions by requiring only limited computing power for the remote control), and the remote control being configured to execute the graphical user interface (Borders, Figs. 9-21); wherein the operating table is configured to move from a first arrangement (Borders, see at least Fig. 13A) to a second arrangement (Borders, see at least Fig. 12); and wherein the computer system is configured to create an updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement, as at least part of said graphical user interface, in response to at least one of a movement signal from the remote control and the movement of the operating table from the first arrangement to the second arrangement, and to provide the updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement to the remote control for displaying the updated image on the graphical user interface (Borders, see image in Fig. 12 is updated as compared to Fig. 13A, additionally, Borders discloses an embodiment with a pendant displayed image, and discloses in column 15, lines 25-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a changing iconographic table representation on the display screen of Borders Fig. 13 since doing so is known by Borders would have simply been use of known technique to improve a similar device in the same way).
Claim 24. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the computer system is configured to control at least a portion of the screen by providing said graphical user interface (Borders discloses a GUI in Figs. 9-21).
Claim 25. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the graphical user interface provided further comprises at least one of the following: an input control element, a checkbox, a radio button, a dropdown list, a list box, a button, a toggle, a date field, an alphabetic keyboard, a numeric keyboard, an icon as a button, an interactive image, a navigational component, a slider, a tooltip, a progress bar, a notification, a message box, a modal window, an image, and a formatted text (Borders discloses various elements of a user interface in Figs. 9-21).
Claim 26. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the remote control is configured to identify, based on an identifier received from the computer system, at least one image in a database on the remote control and to display the at least one image on the screen (as discussed in Applicant’s paragraph [0024], this limitation is directed toward, for example, displaying an image of an “OK” and a “cancel” button; Borders displays various button images in at least Figs. 10-11)
Claim 27. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the computer system is configured to receive user input from the remote control and to initiate, in accordance with the received user input, the display of an updated image of the operating table on the screen of the remote control (the apparatus of Borders receives user input on the user interface of Fig. 9 or alternatively Fig. 38; additionally the system is configured to provide an updated image as disclosed in column 15, lines 12-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”)
Claim 28. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the operating table comprises a plurality of support sections for supporting various parts of a patient, the support sections being movable with respect to each other into different arrangements to support different patient positions of the operating table (Borders, Figs. 3-6 discloses a table with moveable sections); wherein said movement from a first arrangement to a second arrangement comprises moving at least one of the plurality of support sections with respect to other of the plurality of support sections (Borders, Figs. 3-6); and wherein said updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement reflects said movement of at least one of the plurality of support sections with respect to the other support sections (Borders, column 15, lines 12-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”).
Claim 29. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the at least one graphical user interface element further provides, when displayed on the screen, an input option or a set of input options (Borders, Fig. 13A, input options are at least #162-176, or buttons #406/408 in Figs. 28-33); and wherein the computer system is configured to provide image data to the remote control which includes at least one view of the table corresponding to each input option (Borders, provides image data in Fig. 13A, or Figs. 30-33).
Claim 30. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the at least one graphical user interface element further provides, when displayed on the screen, an input option or a set of input options (Borders, Fig. 13A, input options are at least #162-176, or buttons #406/408 in Figs. 28-33); wherein the computer system is configured to provide image data to the remote control which includes at least one view of the table corresponding to each input option (Borders, provides image data in Figs. 12 or 13A, or Figs. 30-33); and wherein the image data includes instructions that cause the remote control, in response to the user selecting an input option, to display the at least one view of the table which corresponds to the selected input option (Borders, displays image data in Figs. 12 or 13A, or Figs. 30-33).
Claim 31. The medical system of claim 23: wherein the screen is a touch screen; wherein when the touch screen is displaying an image of the operating table, and coordinates of a received touch event on the touch screen (Borders discloses use of a touch screen in column 9, lines 5-16) correspond to a position of a leg support of the operating table, the image of the operating table is updated to show the operating table with a lifted leg support (Borders, see image in Fig. 12 is updated as compared to Fig. 13A, additionally, Borders discloses an embodiment with a pendant displayed image, and discloses in column 15, lines 25-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a changing iconographic table representation on the display screen of Borders Fig. 13 since doing so is known by Borders would have simply been use of known technique to improve a similar device in the same way).
Claim 32. A medical system comprising: an operating table (Borders, Fig. 2); a computer system (Borders discloses in the Abstract, “processor is configured to command the frame and mattress to move”, also , Fig. 8 #106); a remote control (Borders, Fig. 9, #40; column 7, lines 43-50 discloses both wired and wireless configurations) for remotely controlling operation of the operating table, the remote control comprising a screen and being remote from the computer system (Borders, Fig. 9, #116); the computer system and the remote control being configured to communicate with each other via a communication interface (Borders, Fig. 8, #112 and column 9, lines 17-31); the medical system being configured to provide a graphical user interface to the remote control from the computer system via the communication interface (Borders, Fig. 9, #116 discloses a GUI; as best understood from Applicant’s remarks and claim amendments, Applicant is attempting to claim an architecture in which a “remote control…being remote from the computer system…[which provides] a graphical user interface to the remote control”; this is commonly known as a “dumb terminal”; Borders does not discuss the use of a “dumb terminal”, however the use of this type of computing architecture is well known in the prior art; at least at taught by Thienphrapa, which discloses a similar surgical bed system and discloses the use of a dumb terminal in at least paragraph [0083]; and states that “the user input device 770 may be operable for interacting with the processor 710 including enabling interaction within a [user interface]”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Borders with a dumb terminal architecture in order to provide for centralized storage of data, thereby improving data security, as well as providing cost reductions by requiring only limited computing power for the remote control), and the remote control being configured to execute the graphical user interface (Borders, Figs. 9-21); wherein the operating table is configured to move from a first arrangement (Borders, see at least Fig. 13A) to a second arrangement (Borders, see at least Fig. 12); and wherein the medical system is configured to create an updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement in response to at least one of a movement signal from the remote control and the movement of the operating table from the first arrangement to the second arrangement, and to provide the updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement to the remote control for displaying the updated image on the graphical user interface (Borders, see image in Fig. 12 is updated as compared to Fig. 13A, additionally, Borders discloses an embodiment with a pendant displayed image, and discloses in column 15, lines 25-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a changing iconographic table representation on the display screen of Borders Fig. 13 since doing so is known by Borders would have simply been use of known technique to improve a similar device in the same way).
Claim 33. See rejection of claims 23 and 32, above. Regarding language directed toward “wherein the computer system is configured to provide image data to the remote control which includes at least one view of the operating table for each input option of the set of input options for display in association with the respective input options”, various views are displayed in Borders Figs. 12, 13A, and 28-33).
Claim 34. The medical system of claim 33, wherein the computer system is configured to receive user input from the remote control and to initiate, in accordance with the received user input, the display of an updated image of the operating table on the screen of the remote control (the apparatus of Borders receives user input on the user interface of Fig. 9 or alternatively Fig. 38; additionally the system is configured to provide an updated image as disclosed in column 15, lines 12-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”).
Claim 35. The medical system of claim 33, wherein the image data includes instructions that cause the remote control, in response to the user selecting an input option, to display the at least one view of the operating table which is related to the selected input option (Borders, displays image data in Figs. 12 or 13A, or Figs. 30-33).
Claim 36. The medical system according to claim 33, wherein the operating table is configured to move from a first arrangement (Borders, see at least Fig. 13A) to a second arrangement (Borders, see at least Fig. 12) in response to a selection of an input option; and wherein the computer system is configured to create an updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement in response to at least a movement signal from the remote control and/or the movement of the operating table from the first arrangement to the second arrangement, and to provide the updated image of the operating table in the second arrangement to the remote control for displaying the updated image on the graphical user interface (Borders, see image in Fig. 12 is updated as compared to Fig. 13A, additionally, Borders discloses an embodiment with a pendant displayed image, and discloses in column 15, lines 25-27, “the iconographic table representation of FIG. 38 is presented in correspondence with the current surgical table configuration”; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a changing iconographic table representation on the display screen of Borders Fig. 13 since doing so is known by Borders would have simply been use of known technique to improve a similar device in the same way).
Claim 37. The medical system of claim 23, wherein the remote control is configured to display the graphical user interface and/or the updated image without interpreting or generating the graphical user interface and/or the updated image itself (in the proposed combination of teachings of Borders and Thienphrapa, the user interface of Borders is configured to be a “dumb terminal”; this type of computer architecture is one in which the user interface data is provided by a centralized processor, which in the case of Borders is computer #46 in Fig. 1)
Claim 38. The medical system of claim 32, wherein the remote control is configured to display the graphical user interface and/or the updated image without interpreting or generating the graphical user interface and/or the updated image itself (in the proposed combination of teachings of Borders and Thienphrapa, the user interface of Borders is configured to be a “dumb terminal”; this type of computer architecture is one in which the user interface data is provided by a centralized processor, which in the case of Borders is computer #46 in Fig. 1).
Claim 39. The medical system of claim 33, wherein the remote control is configured to display the graphical user interface and/or the image data without interpreting or generating the graphical user interface and/or image data itself (in the proposed combination of teachings of Borders and Thienphrapa, the user interface of Borders is configured to be a “dumb terminal”; this type of computer architecture is one in which the user interface data is provided by a centralized processor, which in the case of Borders is computer #46 in Fig. 1).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
Regarding prior objections to the specification, Applicant has amended the specification and the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks that the cited prior art of Borders does not teach the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant argues that Borders teaches the use of IR communications, and that “it does not show or describe the controller receiving a graphical user interface from the IR communication system.” However, Examiner did not cite IR communications in any prior rejections. Borders does however teach the use of wireless communications protocols. More importantly, Applicant appears to be arguing that Border does not teach “a construction in which the controller receives the graphical user interface from a communication interface.” As discussed in the above rejections, this has been interpreted as a computer architecture which is commonly known as a dumb terminal, and which is well known in the prior art (see additional cited art on PTO-892, for example US Patent 4,377,852 to Thompson which provides background information on the concept of a “dumb terminal”). Specific to the field of endeavor of Borders, the prior art of Thienphrapa discloses that a dumb terminal may be used for a medical navigation system in which a computer system interfaces with a surgical bed. New rejections have been entered in this office action based on the combined teachings Borders and Thienphrapa, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached on 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights