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 are pending in this application. Claim 1 has been amended. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 1/23/2026.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltermann (US 20180193216 A1) 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 and relative to 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; and the first link axis being non-parallel to the column axis.
However, Gomez teaches at least one mechanical interface for attaching a device to the tabletop (See Fig. 1, arm mounting system 102).
PNG
media_image3.png
564
498
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 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.
Soltermann in view of Gomez fails to explicitly teach the first link axis being non-parallel to the column axis.
However, Clayton teaches the first link axis being non-parallel to the column axis (See Fig. 6, elongate element 78 of actuator 54 is non-parallel to column 6).
PNG
media_image4.png
646
466
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, having the teachings of Soltermann in view of Gomez (directed to a tiltable tabletop with parallel actuator link axes and attachment mechanism) and Clayton (directed to a tiltable tabletop with non-parallel actuator link axes) before them, to have substituted the actuators of Clayton for the actuators of Soltermann 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 axes are art-recognized equivalent that may be used interchangeable without changing the function of the tiltable table top.
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 in view of Gomez fails to explicitly teach the second link axis being non-parallel to the column axis.
However, Clayton teaches the second link axis being non-parallel to the column axis (See Fig. 6, elongate element 78 of actuator 56 is non-parallel to column 6).
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 Gomez (directed to a tiltable tabletop with parallel actuator link axes and attachment mechanism) and Clayton (directed to a tiltable tabletop with non-parallel actuator link axes) before them, to have substituted the actuators of Clayton for the actuators of Soltermann 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 axes are art-recognized equivalent that may be used interchangeable without changing the function of the tiltable table top.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
See pages 6-8 of the remarks, “In other words, Clayton teaches that an axis of rotation spatially fixed above the column, relative to the column, is a major disadvantage during surgery. Clayton describes the Trendelenburg movement as an example where such a configuration is particularly disadvantageous and then, in the "Summary of the Invention" section (para. [0006]), points out the fundamental importance of having this disadvantage addressed. The subsequent description and the claims capture a solution which is based on a trend axis that is spatially variable (i.e., without a fixed spatial relationship relative to the column). See id. at claim 1. It is clear that the entire motivation of Clayton is to overcome the disadvantages described in para. [0005]. It logically follows that Clayton teaches away from a principal axis that is spatially fixed above the support column and relative to the support column. Accordingly, prima facie obviousness cannot be maintained based on Clayton. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("A prima facie case of obviousness may also be rebutted by showing that the art, in any material respect, teaches away from the claimed invention."); Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, ...would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.").”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Clayton teaches away from a principal axis that is spatially fixed above the support column and relative to the support column, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion and the claim rejection is maintained. The applicant points to paragraphs [0005-0006], detailing how an axis of rotation below the surgical site, although still above the column can be disadvantageous. This is similar to the applicant’s disclosure wherein axis 402 is above support column 116, but below tabletop 102. Further, the examiner explicitly points to the teachings of Clayton to teach the first link axis being non-parallel to the column axis (See Fig. 6, elongate element 78 of actuator 54 is non-parallel to column 6). If one were to apply the actuators of Clayton to the teachings of Soltermann in view of Gomez, one would arrive at a tiltable tabletop with non-parallel actuator link axes. Thus, with the reasonings detailed above, the arguments are found unpersuasive and the claim rejections of claim 1-6 are respectfully maintained.
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