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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 01/29/2025. This IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to. Line 7 recites a “second storage unit” but neither this claim nor claim 1 on which this claim depends recites a first storage unit. Examiner reads --a storage unit--.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7-11, 14-16 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.
Regarding claim 4, the use of the phrase “in particular” in lines 3 and 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the phrase and/or structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is not giving the limitations which include “in particular” patentable weight since they do not appear to be explicitly required by the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the use of the phrase “in particular” in line 14 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the phrase and/or structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is not giving the limitations which include “in particular” patentable weight since they do not appear to be explicitly required by the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the use of the phrase “particularly” in line 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends for the phrase and/or structure that follows “in particular” to be given patentable weight or is only being provided as an example. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be made. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is not giving the limitations which include “particularly” patentable weight since they do not appear to be explicitly required by the claim.
Claims 8-11, 15, and 16 are rejected for their dependence on claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, the line 9 limitation “the first storage unit” and the line 11 limitation “the second storage unit” lack antecedent basis. Neither claim 7 on which this claim depends nor base claim 1 recite any storage units. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --a first storage unit-- and --a second storage unit--.
Regarding claim 14, the line 4 limitation “the reading unit” lacks antecedent basis. Neither claim 12 on which the claim depends or base claim 1 recites a reading unit. Examiner reads --a reading unit--.
Regarding claim 15, the lines 6-7 limitation “the first storage unit” lacks antecedent basis. Neither claim 7 on which this claim depends nor base claim 1 recite any storage units. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --a first storage unit--.
Regarding claim 16, the line 7 limitation “the second storage unit” lacks antecedent basis. Neither claim 7 on which this claim depends nor base claim 1 recite any storage units. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads --a storage unit--.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Timm et al. (US 2018/0147104; “Timm”).
Regarding claim 1, Timm discloses a system for detecting an object or accessory placed on a patient positioning device (120) or attached to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on the patient positioning device (120) or removed from the patient positioning device (120) (¶¶ [0003]. [0052]), the system comprising a surgical patient positioning device (120) which can be used as part of an operating table (100) (¶ [0056]), a load sensor array (270) with at least one load sensor (270) which outputs sensor values (¶ [0067]), a load determination unit (204) which determines a load and/or a center of gravity of the load based on the sensor values, the load including a load acting on the load sensor array (270) or a load acting on the patient positioning device (120) (¶¶ [0066]-[0069]), and a detection unit (202) which receives the load and/or the center of gravity of the load determined by the load determination unit (204), characterized in that, when an object or accessory is placed on the patient positioning device (120) or fastened to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on the patient positioning device (120) or removed from the patient positioning device (120) and the load and/or the center of gravity of the load determined by the load determination unit (204) changes as a result, the detection unit (202) determines from the change in the load and/or of the center of gravity of the load the weight and/or the center of gravity of the object or accessory (¶¶ [0066]-[0069], [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Timm discloses the load determination unit (204) is designed such that the load determination unit (204) determines the load and/or the center of gravity of the load before an object or accessory is placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on or removed therefrom, and the load determination unit (204) determines the load and/or the center of gravity of the load again after the object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on or removed therefrom, and the detection unit (202) is designed such that the detection unit (202) determines the weight and/or the center of gravity of the object or accessory by the detection unit (202) comparing the loads and/or the centers of gravity of the loads determined before and after the object or accessory was placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on or removed therefrom (¶ [0073], [0076]).
Regarding claim 20, Timm discloses wherein the patient positioning device (120) is connected to a column (122) of an operating table (¶ [0056]) and/or can be detachably connected toa column of an operating table and a surgical patient transporter (¶¶ [0078]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 21, Timm discloses wherein the load sensor array (370) is integrated into the patient transporter (¶ [0067]).
Regarding claim 22, Timm discloses a method for detecting an object or accessory placed on a patient positioning device (120) or attached to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on the patient positioning device (120) or removed from the patient positioning device (120) (¶¶ [0003], [0052]) wherein the patient positioning device (120) is a surgical patient positioning device (120) that can be used as part of an operating table (100) (¶ [0056]), a load sensor array (270) with at least one load sensor (270) which outputs sensor values is provided (¶[0067]), a load and/or a center of gravity of the load is determined based on the sensor values, the load including a load acting on the load sensor array (270) or a load acting on the patient positioning device (120) (¶¶ [0066]-[0069]), and characterized in that, when an object or accessory is placed on the patient positioning device (120) or fastened to the patient positioning device (120) or moved on the patient positioning device (120) or removed from the patient positioning device (120) and the determined load and/or the center of gravity of the load changes as a result, the weight and/or the center of gravity of the object or accessory is determined from the change in the load and/or in the center of gravity of the load (¶¶ [0066]-[0069], [0076]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3-8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Hayes et al. (US 2019/0350529; “Hayes”).
Regarding claim 3, Timm discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm is silent to predetermined weights of objects and/or accessories.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches a system for detecting an object on a patient positioning device (20) (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]), wherein the system has a first storage unit (58) in which weight information for predetermined objects and/or accessories is stored and the detection unit (56) compares the weight of the object or accessory determined by it with the weight information and uses the comparison to determine which at least one object or accessory may have been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom (¶¶ [0137]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Hayes’ storage unit and detection unit functionality in Timm’s patient positioning device for the purpose of alerting the medical professional to unexpected objects on the table that may be out of direct line of sight or to keep track of which items are on the table thereby contributing to the overall measured load.
Regarding claim 4, Timm discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm further discloses wherein at least a part of the patient positioning device (120) and in particular at least a part of the surroundings of the patient positioning device (120) is virtually divided into multiple regions, in particular into a minimum of at least one side region, one foot region, and one head region (¶ [0056]).
Timm is silent to determining the identify of objects and/or accessories.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches a system for detecting an object on a patient positioning device (20) (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]), wherein at least a part of the patient positioning device (20) and in particular at least a part of the surroundings of the patient positioning device (20) is virtually divided into multiple regions, in particular into a minimum of at least one side region, one foot region, and one head region (¶ [0101]), and region information is stored in a second storage unit (206) which indicates in which regions predetermined objects and/or accessories are arranged and the detection unit (56) compares the center of gravity of the object or accessory determined by it with the region information and uses the comparison to determine which at least one object or accessory may have been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom (¶¶ [0152]-[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Hayes’ storage unit and detection unit functionality in Timm’s patient positioning device for the purpose of alerting the medical professional to unexpected objects on the table that may be out of direct line of sight or to keep track of which items are on the table thereby contributing to the overall measured load.
Regarding claim 5, Timm discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm is silent to predetermined weights of objects and/or accessories.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches a system for detecting an object on a patient positioning device (20) (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]), wherein the system has a first storage unit (58) in which weight information for predetermined objects and/or accessories is stored (¶¶ [0137]-[0139]), the load determination unit (56) is designed such that the load determination unit (56) determines the load before an object or accessory is placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom, and the load determination unit (56) determines the load again after the object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom (¶ [0137]), the detection unit (56) is designed such that the detection unit (56) determines the weight of the object or accessory in that the detection unit (56) compares the loads determined before and after the object or accessory was placed on the patient positioning device (20) or attached to it or moved on it or removed therefrom, and, in particular, in that the detection unit (56) compares the centers of gravity of the loads determined by the load determination unit (56) before and after the object or accessory was placed on the patient positioning device (20) or attached to it or moved on it or removed therefrom, and the detection unit (56) compares the weight of the object or accessory determined by it with the weight information stored in the first storage unit (58) and uses the comparison to determine which at least one object or accessory may have been placed on the patient positioning device (20) or attached thereto or moved thereon or removed therefrom (¶¶ [0139]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Hayes’ storage unit and detection unit functionality in Timm’s patient positioning device for the purpose of alerting the medical professional to unexpected objects on the table that may be out of direct line of sight or to keep track of which items are on the table thereby contributing to the overall measured load.
Regarding claim 6, Timm discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm is silent to predetermined weights of objects and/or accessories.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches a system for detecting an object on a patient positioning device (20) (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]), wherein the load determination unit (56) is designed such that the load determination unit (56) determines the center of gravity of the load before an object or accessory is placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved thereon or removed therefrom, and the load determination unit (56) determines the center of gravity of the load again after the object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved thereon or removed therefrom and the detection unit (56) is designed such that the detection unit (20) determines the position of the object or accessory by comparing the centers of gravity of the loads determined before and after the object or accessory was placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom (¶¶ [0152]-[0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Hayes’ storage unit and detection unit functionality in Timm’s patient positioning device for the purpose of alerting the medical professional to unexpected objects on the table that may be out of direct line of sight or to keep track of which items are on the table thereby contributing to the overall measured load.
Regarding claim 7, Timm discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm is silent to a proximity tag.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches a system for detecting an object on a patient positioning device (20) (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]), wherein at least some of the objects and/or accessories each have a proximity tag that emits a respective identification code, the system comprises a reading unit which receives the identification codes emitted by the proximity tags, and the detection unit (56) determines which objects or accessories are located in the vicinity of the patient positioning device (20) based on the identification codes received from the reading unit, particularly if the identification code is received from a proximity tag that is at a distance from the reading unit (¶ [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Hayes’ proximity tag configuration in Timm’s patient positioning device for the purpose of helping determine the correct weight of the equipment or accessories on the patient positioning device to ensure the patient positioning device does not have an unsafe load distribution.
Regarding claim 8, Timm in view of Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Hayes further teaches the detection unit (56) determines whether the corresponding object or accessory is located in the vicinity of the patient positioning device (20) based on a signal strength with which the reading unit receives an identification code (¶ [0155]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 10, Timm in view of Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Hayes further teaches the transmission of the identification codes from the proximity tags to the reading unit is based on the Bluetooth standard (¶ [0250]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 11, Timm in view of Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Hayes further teaches wherein the detection unit (56) determines that an object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom if the detection unit (56) determines that the corresponding object or accessory is located in the vicinity of the patient positioning device (20) and the detection unit (56) further determines that the weight of the corresponding object or accessory determined by it lies within a predetermined range around the weight information for this object or accessory stored in the first storage unit (58) and/or that the center of gravity of the corresponding object or accessory determined by it lies within a range provided for this object or accessory and stored in the second storage unit (58) (¶¶ [0155]-[0156]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Timm in view of Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Hayes further teaches wherein the detection unit (56) determines that an object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed therefrom if the detection unit (56) determines that the weight of the corresponding object or accessory determined by it is within a predetermined range around the weight information for this object or accessory stored in the first storage unit (58) (¶¶ [0139]-[0140]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, Timm in view of Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 7 on which this claim depends.
Hayes further teaches wherein the detection unit (56) determines that the corresponding object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device (20) or moved on or removed from the patient positioning device (20) if the detection unit (56) determines that the center of gravity of the corresponding object or accessory determined by it lies within a range provided for this object or accessory and stored in the second storage unit (58) (¶¶ [0153]-[0154]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 19, Timm discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm is silent to an accessory attached to a side rail.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes teaches a system for detecting an object on a patient positioning device (20) (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]), wherein the object or accessory (134) can be detachably connected to a side rail (52a) of the patient positioning apparatus (20) (¶¶ [0046], [0105], [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to incorporate Haye’s accessory into Timm’s positioning apparatus so the user can easily check the vital signs when recovering from surgery.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Hayes and Hayes et al. (US 215/0082542; “Hayes ‘542”).
Regarding claim 9, Timm and Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 8 on which this claim depends.
Hayes generally discloses determining whether an accessory is in the vicinity of the patient positioning device based on a received signal from a proximity tag but is silent specifically to the threshold signal strength.
In the same field of endeavor, Hayes ‘542 teaches a patient positioning device (20) and a method for tracking medical assets (¶¶ [0002]-[0003]) wherein proximity tags are utilized on medical equipment to determine which objects and equipment are in the vicinity of a proximity tag reader, wherein a threshold value for the signal strength is predetermined and the detection unit (46) determines that the corresponding object or accessory is located in the vicinity of the patient positioning device (20) if the signal strength received by the reading unit (64) exceeds the threshold value (¶¶ [0081]-[0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to utilize signal strength as a threshold for proximity determination in Timm’s modified system as suggested by Hayes ‘542 for the purpose of ensuring the proximity detector isn’t including information from objects that aren’t associated with the patient positioning device currently in use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timm in view of Hayes and Mirbagheri et al. (US 2016/0374771; “Mirbagheri”).
Regarding claim 12, Timm and Hayes disclose all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Timm generally discloses attached a robotic arm to the patient positioning device (see e.g. ¶ [0086]) but is silent to a motion detector.
In the same field of endeavor, Mirbagheri teaches a patient positioning device (104) comprising a motion detector associated with an accessory, in particular a robotic arm, which detects a movement of the respective object or accessory (105, 117), and wherein information about the movement state of the object or accessory is transmitted to the detection unit (121) (¶¶ [0083]-[0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Mirbagheri’s motion detector in Timm’s system for the purpose of receiving feedback of the position of the robotic arm so that the user can ensure the arm is positioned properly for carrying out fine movement associated with surgical procedures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 17, and 18 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a system for detecting an object or accessory placed on a patient positioning device as claimed wherein the motion detector and/or the detection unit have a storage function which stores the movements of the respective object or accessory for a predetermined period of time in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a system for detecting an object or accessory placed on a patient positioning device as claimed wherein the detection unit determines that an object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device or moved on or removed therefrom if the detection unit receives from the reading unit the identification code of the corresponding object or accessory and, additionally, the information that the corresponding object or accessory has moved or has recently moved, and the load determination unit also determines that the load and/or the center of gravity of the load have changed in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art either alone or in combination discloses or renders obvious a system for detecting an object or accessory placed on a patient positioning device as claimed wherein at least a part of the system [[(100)]] can be operated in an active mode or standby mode, the load and/or the center of gravity of the load determined by the load determination unit are stored before switching to the standby mode, the detection unit uses the comparison or comparisons to determine whether an object or accessory has been placed on or attached to the patient positioning device or moved on or removed therefrom while the at least part of the system was operating in standby mode in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Claim 18 would be allowable based on its dependence on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following documents represent load sensing surgical tables:
US 2020/0060916
US 2017/0261363
US 2012/0330610
US 2018/0153484
US 2023/0145459
USPN 4,869,266
US 2015/0014069
The following documents disclose patient support apparatuses that track the placement and/or removal of objects of accessories thereof. These patient support apparatus specifications typically specify that surgical tables are also within the purview of the disclosures:
US 2005/0268401
US 2016/0078740
US 2021/0169721
US 2021/0169721 and US 2019/0095717disclose a method of tracking surgical instruments using load cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
