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 1-10 are pending in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 2/5/2026.
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 1-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111169781 A) in view of She (CN 208319326 U).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a surgical instrument table comprising: a base (box body 1); a casing (storage 8) coupled to the base (storage 8 coupled to box body 1); a first table section (first support plate 14); a support mechanism coupling the first table section to the casing (See Fig. 2-4, guide rail 10 coupling plate 14 to storage 8); and a second table section slidably coupled to the first table section (See Fig. 2-4, second support plate 15 slidably coupled to first support plate 14).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
324
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a casing rotatably coupled to the base.
However, She teaches a casing rotatably coupled to the base (See Fig. 2, first section 211 of support column 211 rotatable with respect to first side surface of main body 100).
PNG
media_image4.png
262
316
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 Wang by adding the rotatable connection taught by She. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “incline a certain angle outwards”; (She). 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, Wang, as modified, teaches the surgical instrument table of claim 1, wherein the first and second table sections are slidable into and out of an interior space of the casing (See Fig. 2-4, first support plate 14 and second support plate 15 slidable out of storage 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang, as modified, teaches the surgical instrument table of claim 1, wherein the casing is positionable adjacent to an underside surface of the base (See Fig. 2-4, storage 8 is adjacent (next to or near) the under surface of box body 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang, as modified, teaches the surgical instrument table of claim 1, wherein the first and second table sections are pivotable in relation to the casing (See Fig. 2-4, first support plate 14 and second support plate 15 pivot in relation to storage 8 when slid out of the storage 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang, as modified, teaches the surgical instrument table of claim 1, wherein the movements of the casing and the first and second table sections are manually actuated (See Fig. 2-4, plates 14 and 15 are manually slid along guide rail 10 simultaneously, followed by plate 15 out of plate 14 manually).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111169781 A) in view of She (CN 208319326 U), further in view of Sherman (US 20200268583 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang, as modified, teaches the surgical instrument table of claim 1.
Wang in view of She fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second table sections are rotatable 180° relative to the base.
However, Sherman teaches wherein the first and second table sections are rotatable 180° relative to the base (See Fig. 4, platform 42 is able to rotate 360 degrees around the second axis of rotation 62 relative to the platform 44).
PNG
media_image5.png
736
532
media_image5.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 Wang in view of She by adding the rotating capabilities of the platform taught by Sherman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide desired vertical and horizontal positioning and orientation of the platform”; (Sherman, [0022]). 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, Wang, as modified, teaches the surgical instrument table of claim 1.
Wang in view of She fails to explicitly teach wherein the movements of the casing and the first and second table sections are motorized.
However, Sherman teaches wherein the movements of the casing and the first and second table sections are motorized (“one or more mechanisms on the assembly may me mechanically drive, e.g., via motors where the user may control the positioning of the platform”; [0016]).
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 Wang in view of She by adding the motors taught by Sherman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “control the positioning of the platform”; (Sherman, [0016]). 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 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111169781 A) in view of She (CN 208319326 U), further in view of Sampognaro (US 20150351707 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses a system comprising: a surgical instrument table (first support plate 14 and second support plate 15) comprising: a base (box body 1); a casing (storage 8) coupled to the base (storage 8 coupled to box body 1); a first table section (first support plate 14); a support mechanism coupling the first table section to the casing (See Fig. 2-4, guide rail 10 coupling plate 14 to storage 8); and a second table section slidably coupled to the first table section (See Fig. 2-4, second support plate 15 slidably coupled to first support plate 14).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose a casing rotatably coupled to the base; and a surgical drape positioned on the surgical instrument table; and a close-up monitor coupled to the surgical instrument table.
However, She teaches a casing rotatably coupled to the base (See Fig. 2, first section 211 of support column 211 rotatable with respect to first side surface of main body 100) and a close-up monitor coupled to the surgical instrument table (See Fig. 6, “movable curing device comprises a display screen”).
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 Wang by adding the rotatable connection and display screen taught by She. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “incline a certain angle outwards”; (She) and “for inquiring the patient information”; (She). 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.
Wang in view of She fails to explicitly teach a surgical drape positioned on the surgical instrument table.
However, Sampognaro teaches a surgical drape positioned on the surgical instrument table (See Fig. 18, “surgical drapes 212 configured for use with the table assembly”; [0075]).
PNG
media_image6.png
436
444
media_image6.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 Wang in view of She by adding the drapes taught by Sampognaro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the drapes are of the “sterile drapes”; (Sampognaro, [0090]) variety. 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 10, Wang, as modified, teaches the system of claim 8.
Wang in view of She fails to explicitly teach wherein the close-up monitor is configured to provide an operator a close-up view of surgical images.
However, Sampognaro teaches wherein the close-up monitor is configured to provide an operator a close-up view of surgical images (“projected images of the heart are readily viewable upon the monitors 250, 252”; [0083]).
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 Wang in view of She by adding the surgical images on monitors as taught by Sampognaro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “the practitioner may comfortably maintain visual contact with the images”; (Sampognaro, [0082]). 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111169781 A) in view of She (CN 208319326 U), in view of Sampognaro (US 20150351707 A1), further in view of Bemman (US 20200060780 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang, as modified, teaches the system of claim 8.
Wang in view of She in view of Sampognaro fails to explicitly teach a first set of magnetic strips coupled to the surgical instrument table; and a second set of magnetic strips coupled to the surgical drape positioned on the surgical instrument table, wherein the first set of magnetic strips correspond to the second set of magnetic strips.
However, Bemman teaches a first set of magnetic strips coupled to the surgical instrument table; and a second set of magnetic strips coupled to the surgical drape positioned on the surgical instrument table, wherein the first set of magnetic strips correspond to the second set of magnetic strips (See Fig. 7, magnet 94 is installed on drape 64 and top surface 58 of table 52 to secure drape 64 to the table 52).
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 Wang in view of She in view of Sampognaro by adding magnets as taught by Bemman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so “movement of the drape 64 can be minimized”; (Bemman, [0079]). 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 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
“First, there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Wang and She. The Office action alleges a PHOSITA would be motivated to make this modification to "incline a certain angle outwards." Office action p. 5. However, in She, this rotation is specifically for a "display screen" intended for "inquiring the patient information." Office action, p. 9. A PHOSITA would not find it obvious to take a rotational assembly designed for the orientation of a lightweight electronic display and apply it to the load-bearing, telescoping casing of a surgical intervention table.”
“Second, the proposed combination would require a fundamental redesign of Wang's base. In Wang, the "storage 8" is an integrated, internal compartment of the "box body 1." To implement the external, column-based rotation of She would necessitate removing the storage unit from Wang's base and mounting it to an external support column. Such a modification would render Wang's primary storage function inoperable. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (rejecting an obviousness combination where the modification would render the prior art inoperable).”
“Furthermore, referring to pending claim 8, the addition of Sampognaro to teach a surgical drape does not cure the underlying lack of a "casing rotatably coupled to the base" as currently claimed in pending claim 8. As such, the primary combination of Wang and She is structurally and functionally incompatible; the addition of a third reference, Sampognaro, to add auxiliary features like a drape cannot establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the system as a whole.”
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to add the rotatable connection taught by She to the invention of Wang is to “incline a certain angle outward”; (She). Further looking at Fig. 2 of She as well as the specification, there is no specific mention or call out of the rotation being specifically for the display screen of She. Inclining the support column 211 outwards is strictly for the operator’s use of the table 220. Thus, the motivation to combine the teachings of Wang and She is sufficient and rejection of claim 1 is respectfully maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the addition of external, column-based rotation of She would render Wang’s primary storage function inoperable, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is respectfully maintained.
The teachings of the tertiary reference of Sampognaro are directed to a surgical drape, while the teachings of She are relied upon to teaching the rotatable casing, which has sufficient support as previously argued above. Thus, the rejection of claim 8 is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 20937775 U: Wan discloses a working table comprising a sliding mechanism wherein a plate is slidably connected to a hollow case, but also utilizes a turntable to slidably rotate the plate
KR 200143747 Y1: Park discloses a device comprising a surgical instrument table wherein the table is inserted into guide rails and is capable of translating and rotating movements.
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 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