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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
Regarding claim 4, recites the limitation "the first predefined angle threshold" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim appears to depend on claim 3 instead of claim 1. Please review.
Regarding claim 5, is also rejected because it depends on claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rempp (Pub. No.: US 2025/0383253 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rempp teaches a computer-implemented method for outputting warnings related to a patient on a surgical table during a surgical procedure (Abstract, safety system for detecting a collision of a medical table), comprising:
determining a configuration of the surgical table (Fig. 10B, Fig. 13, step 303, para [0160], “In decision step 303, it is checked whether the patient bearing device 18 or at least one segment of the patient bearing device 18 moves in any way.”. The system determines whether the medical table is moving downward);
determining, based on the configuration of the surgical table, that the patient is in an at-risk position (para [0003], “Also, the patient bearing device on which the patient is located should be displaced, tipped or trended within allowable limits only. When adjusting the operating table, it should be guaranteed that the patient is correctly secured and does not fall or slide from the operating table. Furthermore, when adjusting the operating table, it should be made sure that the operating table does not collide with an external object, e.g. a C-arm.” and para [120], “The tipping prevention unit 114 and the overload protection unit 115 are further subunits of the safety unit 106. With the total load and/or the centre of the total load, the tipping prevention unit 114 creates a tipping safety signal 130 which indicates whether there is a risk of the operating table 10 tipping. With the active load and/or the centre of the active load, the overload protection unit 115 creates an overload protection signal 132 which indicates whether there is an overload risk for the operating table 10 and/or at least one component of the operating table 10.”. The system determines based on the movement of the medical table whether the medical table is going to tip or collide with an object that causes patient to fall or slide off the medical table);
initiating a timer to track an elapsed time period during which the patient is in the at-risk position;
determining that the elapsed time period exceeds a predefined time threshold (Fig. 13, steps 303 – 306, para [0161], “If the result of the decision step 303 is “no”, the current load value F.sub.L is stored as load value L.sub.idle in step 304 and the method returns to the decision step 301. If the result is “yes”, it is evaluated in decision step 305 whether the current load F.sub.L has reached or exceeded the threshold L.sub.warn.” and para [0162], “If the current load F.sub.L has reached or exceeded the threshold L.sub.warn, a snooze time is activated for a specified duration in step 306.”. If the load or configuration of the medical table exceeds the warning threshold at step 305 then the system activates a snooze timer at step 306); and
outputting a warning related to the patient on the surgical table (para [0117], “Depending on the severity of the detected situation, the algorithm reacts correspondingly. The operating table 10 can only issue a warning, for example, or stop the movement. The warnings can be via an acoustic or optical signal through the operating table 10 or in the form of text via the remote control. The measures can vary from slowing down the movement speed to stopping the movement or blocking some functions and last until a condition is reached in which the operating table 10 is safe again.”. The system outputs a warning.).
Regarding claim 2, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at-risk position includes a Trendelenburg position, a prone position, a tilt position, a traction position, or any combination thereof (para [0029], “For example, the patient bearing device can be trended or tilted. A trend of the patient bearing device is also referred to as a Trendelenburg trend where the patient is borne so that the head of the patient is down and the pelvis of the patient is further up.”).
Regarding claim 3, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the configuration of the surgical table comprises determining if an angle between a table surface of the surgical table and a horizontal level is larger than a first predefined angle threshold (para [0043], “The load detection unit can determine a different load as a function of the trend and/or tilt of the patient bearing device. In some designs, one or more or all thresholds from the group of the first, the second and the third thresholds can each be variable. For example, the respective thresholds can depend on a trend angle and/or a tilt angle of the patient bearing device or of the at least one segment of the patient bearing device.”. A higher title angle indicates the patient is more likely to fall off the medical table.).
Regarding claim 10, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying the elapsed time period and/or the warning on one or more displays (para [0117], “The warnings can be via an acoustic or optical signal through the operating table 10 or in the form of text via the remote control.”).
Regarding claim 12, Rempp teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the one or more displays comprise a display on a control device communicatively coupled with the surgical table (para [0117], “The warnings can be via an acoustic or optical signal through the operating table 10 or in the form of text via the remote control.”).
Regarding claim 13, Rempp teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more displays comprise a surgical display, a surgical control panel, a dashboard, or any combination thereof (para [0117], “The warnings can be via an acoustic or optical signal through the operating table 10 or in the form of text via the remote control.”).
Regarding claim 14, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the warning is visual, auditory, haptic, or any combination thereof (para [0117], “The warnings can be via an acoustic or optical signal through the operating table 10 or in the form of text via the remote control.”).
Regarding claim 19, recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Rempp further teaches the system comprising:
a surgical table for accommodating a patient during the surgical procedure (Fig. 1);
one or more processors;
a memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 2 and para [0111], “Apart from an operating table 10 as represented in FIG. 1, the system 100 has a load sensor arrangement 102, a load determination unit 104, a safety unit 106, a monitoring and calibration unit 108, a data storage 110 as well as further components 112 of the operating table system 100. Further, the safety unit 106 contains a detection unit 113, a tipping prevention unit 114 and an overload protection unit 115.”).
Regarding claim 20, recites a computer readable storage medium for the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rempp (Pub. No.: US 2025/0383253 A1) in view of Orr (Pub. No.: US 2022/0362495 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the predefined time threshold is determined based on a Body Mass Index (BMI) of the patient, an age of the patient, one or more pre-existing medical conditions of the patient, historical data associated with the patient, historical data associated with the surgical procedure, a milestone associated with the surgical procedure, a phase associated with the surgical procedure, or any combination thereof.
However, in the same field of patient care, Orr teaches a predetermined time is determined by the age of the patient. See para [0040], “In other configurations, the predetermined time interval may be selected by software based on known parameters, such as the age and/or condition of the patient.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rempp’s snooze time to be determined by the age of the patient to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 7, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the predefined time threshold is determined based on a user profile associated with the surgical procedure.
However, in the same field of patient care, Orr teaches a predetermined time is determined by patient’s profile that includes age and health condition. See para [0040], “In other configurations, the predetermined time interval may be selected by software based on known parameters, such as the age and/or condition of the patient.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rempp’s snooze time to be determined by the patient’s profile to improve accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Rempp teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the predefined time threshold is determined based on a machine-learning model.
However, in the same field of patient care, Orr teaches a predetermined time is determined by a software based on learned age and condition of the patient. See para [0040], “In other configurations, the predetermined time interval may be selected by software based on known parameters, such as the age and/or condition of the patient.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rempp’s snooze time to be determined a software to improve accuracy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rempp (Pub. No.: US 2025/0383253 A1) in view of Centen (Pub. No.: US 2018/0199824 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Rempp teaches the method of claim 10, but fail to teach wherein the elapsed time period is displayed in accordance with a color scheme to indicate the length of the elapsed time period.
However, in the same field of display, Centen teaches a display that changes color based on the length of the time that has elapsed. See para [0048], “Alternatively, or additionally, the device may include a light that flashes or changes colour when the necessary length of time has elapsed,”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rempp’s display to changes color based on the length of the time that has elapsed to improve notification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685