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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “ordinary operation” in claim 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ordinary operation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The phrase/term ‘ordinary operation’ relies on what is considered “ordinary”, specifically what would define something to be of an extraordinary operation, such as for maintenance, repair or specialized setup. Specifically noting that the definition of ordinary depends entirely on context, perspective and comparison rather than an absolute or fixed standard. What is considered "ordinary" varies based on the specific machine, industry standards, past experience, and/or operating environment. Notably the following might be considered when determining an ‘ordinary operation’ vs. an ‘extraordinary operation’, yet all are still personal opinion dependent: (1) additional tools such as a screwdriver, pliers, etc., (2) or if more than one user is required, (3) or the period of time to remove, (4) or if it takes more than one step to remove the carriage from the tower.
Therefore, the Examiner suggests providing further clarity as how an ‘ordinary operation’ can be defined and providing commonality / comparisons within the disclosure, for how one can determine the term ‘ordinary’. Or alternatively, providing alternative claim language to define how the carriage is configured not to be removed from the tower by a user.
Claim(s) 35-38 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 34).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20-22, 24, 28, 30, 31, 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharps et al., hereinafter 'Sharps' (US 20100293713 A1).
In regards to Claim 20, Sharps teaches: A system for a surgery table (100 - Fig. 1, Para 0010), comprising: a post extending vertically (101 - Fig. 1) between first and second ends of the post (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps); a tower coupled to the post (106 - Fig. 1A), the tower extending in a vertical direction between first and second ends of the tower (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps); a carriage coupled to the tower (315 - Fig. 3), the carriage is configured to move in an upward direction and a downward direction with respect to the tower (Figs. 3-4, shows the shafts allowing for carriage 315 to respectively expand and collapse to different positions, Para 0066 and Para 0076), the carriage comprising a controller (304 - Fig. 3), wherein the carriage is not configured to move in the upward direction and the downward direction without engaging the controller (Para 0066: "A release knob 304 provides a mechanism to release rack shafts 301a, 303a, 301b, 303b in order to expand to their fully extended positions." and Claim 17 of Sharps stating: "a release knob coupled to the ratchet-and-pawl system, the release knob operable to release the first and the second-dual-rack-and-pinion arrangements and permit the rack shafts to move into the fully extended position."); and a platform coupled to the carriage (114 - Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps
In regards to Claim 21, Sharps teaches: The system of claim 20, wherein the tower further comprises a gear rack ([306a, 306b] - Fig. 3, Para 0066 and 0076), and the carriage further comprises one or more pawls (Para 0066: "A latch-and-pawl-system disposed within housing 302 provides a mechanism for the rack and pinion system to collapse and back-drive the pawl mechanism in one direction (i.e., collapse direction of the racks).", further noting Para 0024 and Para 0017), wherein engaging the controller is configured to disengage one or more pawls from a gear rack, and wherein the one or more pawls are configured to reengage the gear rack upon disengaging the controller (Para 0058: "Ratchet-and-pawl systems provide mechanisms with the ability to back-drive in one direction and catch in the opposite direction of rotation as is used in COG assemblies 106.", noting the back-drive vs. catch to either engage or disengage).
In regards to Claim 22, Sharps teaches: The system of claim 20, where the tower is removably coupled to the post, and the carriage is further removably coupled to the post (Fig. 3 is shown to be removable).
In regards to Claim 24, Sharps teaches: The system of claim 20, wherein the carriage is configured to move in the upward direction without rotation of the controller (Para 0066: "A release knob 304 provides a mechanism to release rack shafts 301a, 303a, 301b, 303b in order to expand to their fully extended positions", noting that the knob would be pulled and then would release the shaft without rotation disclosed).
In regards to Claim 28, Sharps teaches: The system of claim 20, wherein the carriage is not coupled to the tower by a removable pin (308 shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 1A, attaches the carriage to the tower, not by a removable pin).
In regards to Claim 30, Sharps teaches: A system for a surgery table (100 - Fig. 1, Para 0010), comprising: a post extending vertically (101 - Fig. 1) between first and second ends of the post (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps); a tower coupled to the post (106 - Fig. 1A), the post extending in a vertical direction between first and second ends of the tower (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps); and a carriage coupled to the tower (315 - Fig. 3), the carriage configured to move in an upward and a downward direction with respect to the tower and between the first and second ends of the tower (Figs. 3-4, shows the shafts allowing for carriage 315 to respectively expand and collapse to different positions, Para 0066 and Para 0076), wherein the carriage is configured to maintain a position in an upward direction and a downward direction with respect to the tower and between the first and second ends of the tower without use of a removable pin (308 shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 1A, attaches the carriage and will maintain position relative to the upward or downward direction, not by a removable pin).
In regards to Claim 31, Sharps teaches: The system of claim 30, wherein the tower further comprises a gear rack ([306a, 306b] - Fig. 3, Para 0066 and 0076), and the carriage further comprises one or more pawls (Para 0066: "A latch-and-pawl-system disposed within housing 302 provides a mechanism for the rack and pinion system to collapse and back-drive the pawl mechanism in one direction (i.e., collapse direction of the racks).", further noting Para 0024 and Para 0017), wherein engaging the controller is configured to disengage one or more pawls from a gear rack, and wherein the one or more pawls are configured to reengage the gear rack upon disengaging the controller (Para 0058: "Ratchet-and-pawl systems provide mechanisms with the ability to back-drive in one direction and catch in the opposite direction of rotation as is used in COG assemblies 106.", noting the back-drive vs. catch to either engage or disengage).
In regards to Claim 34, Sharps teaches (as best understood by the 112(b) indicated above): A system of a surgery table (100 - Fig. 1, Para 0010), comprising: a post extending vertically (101 - Fig. 1) between first and second ends of the post (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps); a tower coupled to the post (106 - Fig. 1A), the post extending in a vertical direction between first and second ends of the tower (see annotated Fig. 1.1 from Sharps); and a carriage coupled to the tower (315 - Fig. 3), the carriage configured to move in an upward direction and a downward direction with respect to the tower and between the first and second ends of the tower (Figs. 3-4, shows the shafts allowing for carriage 315 to respectively expand and collapse to different positions, Para 0066 and Para 0076), wherein the carriage is configured not to be removable from the tower in ordinary operation by a user (308 shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 1A, attaches the carriage and has to be removed on either end, yet is not fully removable to the tower as 309 would also need to be removed on the opposite side - thus not an ordinary operation by a user).
In regards to Claim 35, Sharps teaches (as best understood by the 112(b) indicated above): The system of claim 34, wherein the carriage is not coupled to the tower by a removable pin (308 shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 1A, attaches the carriage and will maintain position relative to the upward or downward direction, not by a removable pin).
In regards to Claim 36, Sharps teaches (as best understood by the 112(b) indicated above): The system of claim 34, wherein the tower further comprises a gear rack ([306a, 306b] - Fig. 3, Para 0066 and 0076), and the carriage further comprises one or more pawls (Para 0066: "A latch-and-pawl-system disposed within housing 302 provides a mechanism for the rack and pinion system to collapse and back-drive the pawl mechanism in one direction (i.e., collapse direction of the racks).", further noting Para 0024 and Para 0017), wherein engaging the controller is configured to disengage one or more pawls from a gear rack, and wherein the one or more pawls are configured to reengage the gear rack upon disengaging the controller (Para 0058: "Ratchet-and-pawl systems provide mechanisms with the ability to back-drive in one direction and catch in the opposite direction of rotation as is used in COG assemblies 106.", noting the back-drive vs. catch to either engage or disengage).
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Sharps' (US 20100293713 A1) in view of Jackson et al., hereinafter 'Jackson' (US 20130198958 A1).
In regards to Claim 23, Sharps teaches: The system of claim 20, but Sharps does not explicitly teach, wherein the controller comprises a slide lock knob that is configured to rotate.
Jackson teaches: wherein the controller comprises a slide lock knob that is configured to rotate (34 as shown in Fig. 19 via P1 capable of rotating along axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the controller of Sharps to include the rotational slide lock knob as taught by Jackson in order to provide an alternative and predictable locking mechanism that permits controlled adjustment and secure positioning of the controller. The substitution of one known locking configuration for another performing the same function would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 25-27, 29, 32-33 and 37-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 25, 27, 33 and 38, the prior art of Sharps fails to teach or suggest a crossbar coupled to the post wherein the platform extends generally perpendicular to the carriage such that a plane of the crossbar is generally perpendicular to a plane of the platform, and wherein the platform extends generally perpendicular to the post, as recited in each claim. Sharps discloses individual latching mechanisms disposed to attach to respective tubes; however, these latches are discrete attachment elements and do not form a transverse crossbar structure coupled to the post. Moreover, Sharps does not disclose the claimed orthogonal planar relationships between the crossbar, platform, and post. The specific perpendicular structural configuration required by the claims is neither shown nor reasonably suggested by Sharps. Accordingly, the subject matter of Claims 25, 27, 33, and 38 is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 26, 32 and 37, the prior art of Sharps fails to teach or suggest a carriage comprising first and second handles positioned at opposite ends of the carriage, wherein the controller and the first and second handles are configured to allow a user to move the carriage upward and downward while simultaneously grasping at least one of the handles and manipulating the controller, as recited in Claim 26. Sharps does not disclose dedicated handles at opposite ends of the carriage for user manipulation. Further, the controller disclosed in Sharps, such as a locking pin, functions solely as a locking mechanism and is not configured to permit coordinated movement of the carriage while being manipulated in conjunction with a handle. The cited controller does not enable simultaneous lifting or lowering while grasping a handle and actuating the controller. Therefore, the claimed structural and functional cooperation between the controller and opposed handles is not taught or suggested by the prior art on record
Regarding Claim 29, the prior art of Sharps fails to teach or suggest that the tower and the carriage comprise an H-frame configuration. The structure disclosed in Sharps does not form an H-shaped frame or any comparable letter-frame configuration. Instead, Sharps discloses a central adjustable module with upper and lower stabilizing components that provide attachment and support, forming a generally rectangular or modular structure with adjustable elements. The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed H-frame configuration of the tower and carriage. Accordingly, Claim 29 is allowable for at least these reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jackson et al., (US 20130312182 A1) teaches: An apparatus for transferring a supine patient to a prone position on a patient positioning support system, and for rotating such a prone patient between prone and supine positions without removing the patient from the patient positioning support system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673