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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-6 and 21-24 are pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 21-24 are new claims. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 5/20/2026.
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 1-2, 4-6 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltermann (US 20180193216 A1) in view of Bell (US 2217783 A), in view of Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1), further in view of Clayton (US 20200188207 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Soltermann discloses a surgical table (table 20) comprising: a tabletop (table 20) comprising: a top surface, and an underside (See Fig. 1, table 20 having a top and bottom surface); a support column that elevates the tabletop relative to a floor along a column axis (See Fig. 1, “lifting column 60 for raising and lowering the table 20”; [0038], vertical plane VP); and a tilt mechanism connecting the support column and the tabletop (See Fig. 1, actuators 70 and 80 connected to column 60 and table 20), comprising: a center pivot (universal coupling 68) that defines a principal axis and couples the underside of the tabletop to the support column (See Fig. 1, coupling 68 connects to table 20 and column 60, “universal coupling 68 creates a torsion connection and does not rotate in the vertical plane VP); and a tilt drive mechanism to rotate the tabletop about the principal axis (See Fig. 4, actuators 70 and 80 rotate the table 20 in a lateral direction) that is spatially fixed above the support column (See Fig. 1, axis of rotation is above lifting column 60), comprising: a first link (actuator 70) having a first end and a second end (See Fig. 1, actuator 70 connected to table 20 and column 60); and a first joint (coupling 69) rotatably coupled to the underside of the tabletop (coupling 69 connecting actuator 70 to table 20 at Pivot point PP1); wherein the first end of the first link is connected to the support column (See Fig. 1, joints 115, 120, 125 connecting actuator 70 to column 60) and the second end is connected to the first joint (See Fig. 1, coupling 69 connecting actuator 70 to table 20 at Pivot point PP1), wherein the first link is extendable and retractable along a first link axis between the support column and the underside of the tabletop to cause the tabletop to tilt about the principal axis (See Fig. 4, “movement in the lateral plane is facilitated by the controlled individual movements of the first, second and third actuators about pivot point PP2”; [0044]).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Soltermann fails to explicitly disclose at least one mechanical interface for attaching a device to the tabletop; a principal axis that is spatially fixed relative to the support column; and the first link axis being non-parallel to the column axis.
However, Bell teaches a principal axis that is spatially fixed relative to the support column (See Fig. 3, axis extending through pivot point 18); and the first link axis being non-parallel to the column axis (See Fig. 3, axis of pistons 38, non-parallel to piston 16).
PNG
media_image3.png
374
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann by using the axis set up as taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “Trendelenburg movement”; (Bell, [25]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Soltermann in view of Bell fails to explicitly teach at least one mechanical interface for attaching a device to the tabletop.
However, Gomez teaches at least one mechanical interface for attaching a device to the tabletop (See Fig. 1, arm mounting system 102).
PNG
media_image4.png
564
498
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann by adding the arm mounting system taught by Gomez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “mounting teleoperated surgical arms”; (Gomez, [Pg. 1, Line 8]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 1, wherein the tilt drive mechanism further comprises: a second link (actuator 80) having a third end and a fourth end (See Fig. 1, actuator 80 connected to table 20 and column 60); and a second joint (coupling 69) rotatably coupled to the underside of the tabletop (coupling 69 connecting actuator 80 to table 20 at Pivot point PP3); wherein the third end of the second link is coupled to the support column (See Fig. 1, joints 115, 120, 125 connecting actuator 80 to column 60) and the fourth end of the second link is connected to the second joint (See Fig. 1, coupling 69 connecting actuator 80 to table 20 at Pivot point PP3), wherein the second link is extendable and retractable along a second link axis between the support column and the underside of the tabletop to cause the tabletop to tilt about the principal axis (See Fig. 4, “movement in the lateral plane is facilitated by the controlled individual movements of the first, second and third actuators about pivot point PP2”; [0044]).
Soltermann fails to explicitly teach the second link axis being non-parallel to the column axis.
However, Bell teaches the second link axis being non-parallel to the column axis (See Fig. 3, axis of pistons 38, non-parallel to piston 16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann by using the axis set up as taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “Trendelenburg movement”; (Bell, [25]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 1, wherein the device and the tilt mechanism are coplanar to a second plane orthogonal to the principal axis (See Fig. 4 of Soltermann and Fig. 1 of Gomez, both the actuators and arm mounting system 102 would be coplanar to a second plane orthogonal to the VP of Soltermann when combined).
Regarding Claim 5, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 1. Soltermann in view of Bell fails to explicitly teach further comprising the device.
However, Gomez teaches the device (Surgical arm 60).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann in view of Bell by adding the surgical arm taught by Gomez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “increased precision and range of motion in manipulating surgical instruments”; (Gomez, [Pg. 1, Lines 15-16]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 1. Soltermann in view of Bell fails to explicitly teach wherein the device is a manipulator arm.
However, Gomez teaches wherein the device is a manipulator arm (manipulator 62).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann in view of Bell by adding the manipulator surgical arm taught by Gomez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “increased precision and range of motion in manipulating surgical instruments”; (Gomez, [Pg. 1, Lines 15-16]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 21, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 2.
Soltermann fails to explicitly teach wherein the first end of the first link and the third end of the second link are collocated.
However, Bell teaches wherein the first end of the first link and the third end of the second link are collocated (See Fig. 3, ends of axis of pistons 38 next to each other).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann by using the axis set up as taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “Trendelenburg movement”; (Bell, [25]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 22, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 21.
Soltermann fails to explicitly teach wherein the first end of the first link and the third end of the second link are collocated at the column axis.
However, Bell teaches wherein the first end of the first link and the third end of the second link are collocated at the column axis (See Fig. 3, ends of axis of pistons 38 and axis of piston 16 next to each other).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann by using the axis set up as taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “Trendelenburg movement”; (Bell, [25]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 23, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 22.
Soltermann fails to explicitly teach wherein the column axis perpendicularly intersects with the principal axis.
However, Bell teaches wherein the column axis perpendicularly intersects with the principal axis (See Fig. 3, vertical and horizontal axis are perpendicular and intersect at pivot point 18).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann by using the axis set up as taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “Trendelenburg movement”; (Bell, [25]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 3 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltermann (US 20180193216 A1) in view of Bell (US 2217783 A), in view of Gomez (WO 2019217094 A1), further in view of Clayton (US 20200188207 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 1, wherein the tilt drive mechanism clears a first plane perpendicular to the top surface of the tabletop, parallel to the principal axis and tangential to an innermost point or surface of the device, as the first plane pivots along with the tabletop for a rotation about the principal axis (See Fig. 4, Soltermann teaches this tilt mechanism of the actuators achieving this rotation up to 30 degrees).
Soltermann in view of Bell in view of Gomez fails to explicitly teach rotation up to 40 degrees.
However, Clayton teaches rotation up to 40 degrees (“steep trend angles of at least 45 degrees”; [0111]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Soltermann in view of Bell in view of Gomez by adding rotation capable of 40 degrees such as taught by Clayton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the surgical site of the patient to be operated on by the surgeon is not above the column”; (Clayton, [0005]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 24, Soltermann, as modified, teaches the surgical table (table 20) of claim 1.
Soltermann in view of Bell in view of Gomez fails to explicitly teach wherein at no point during the rotation of the tabletop about the principal axis is the first link parallel to the column axis.
However, Clayton teaches wherein at no point during the rotation of the tabletop about the principal axis is the first link parallel to the column axis (elongate elements of first and second actuators 54 and 56 will not be parallel to the x-axis at any point).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Soltermann in view of Bell in view of Gomez (directed to a tiltable tabletop with link axis and attachment mechanisms) and Clayton(directed to a tiltable tabletop with non-parallel actuator link axis) before them, to have substituted the actuators of Clayton for the actuators of Soltermann in view of Bell in view of Gomez with a reasonable expectation of success. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as the two actuators with different link axis are art-recognized equivalents that may be used interchangeable without changing the function of the tiltable table top.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210186789 A1: Campbell discloses a tiltable surgical table comprising linear actuators configured to tilt the table laterally and longitudinally at an angle of 45 degrees.
US 20140250598 A1: Sharps discloses a surgical table that is configured to be lifted or tiled to position a patient by way of linear actuators.
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights