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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 01/07/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-11, 13-15, 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the second end’ are suggested to state ‘the opposite second end’
With regards to ‘the ground’, please provide proper primary antecedent basis by stating ‘a ground’
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Regarding Claim 2, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Please note, ‘the support portion’ is recited twice with reference to a first end and a second end. Yet is not referred back to as either ‘the first / the second vertical support portion’ – correction is necessary, to emphasize which vertical support portion is interconnected and moveable.
Regarding Claim 3, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Regarding Claim 10, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
With regards to ‘the ground’, please provide proper primary antecedent basis by stating ‘a ground’
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
All recitations of ‘the second end’ are suggested to state ‘the opposite second end’
Please note, ‘the support portion’ is recited twice with reference to a first end and a second end. Yet is not referred back to as either ‘the first / the second vertical support portion’ – correction is necessary, to emphasize which vertical support portion is interconnected and moveable.
Regarding Claim 11, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Regarding Claim 13, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Regarding Claim 14, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Regarding Claim 15, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Regarding Claim 18, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
With regards to ‘the ground’, please provide proper primary antecedent basis by stating ‘a ground’
All recitations of ‘the second end’ are suggested to state ‘the opposite second end’
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Please note, ‘the support portion’ is recited twice with reference to a first end and a second end. Yet is not referred back to as either ‘the first / the second vertical support portion’ – correction is necessary, to emphasize which vertical support portion is interconnected and moveable.
Regarding Claim 19, the following amendments are suggested to provide consistent and clarifying antecedent basis:
All recitations of ‘the translating beam’ are suggested to state ‘the translating lower beam’
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 3-9, 11-17, 19-20 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 “majority” in claim(s) 3, 11 and 19 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “majority” 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 term majority is not defined by the disclosure, further it does not define a precise numerical boundary making its meaning dependent on context, subjective interpretation and specific (often subjective) user experiences rather than objective, universally defined measurement.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 12-14 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 (claims 3 and 11, respectively).
The term “can” in claim(s) 6-7, 14-15 and 20 introduces indefiniteness into the overall scope of protection sought by the claim. The Examiner is unsure if the limitation following after 'can' is required or optional as the term "can” could be interpreted to express possibility. As such, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to clarify or further remove the term from each of the claims. The examiner further suggests amending the claim to “… [[can]] is configured to be….”.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 16-17 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 (claims 3 and 11, respectively).
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) 1-6, 10-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Drake (US 20160193099 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Drake teaches: A reconfigurable surgical frame (600 - Fig. 14) including a translating lower beam (30 - Fig. 14), the reconfigurable surgical frame comprising: a first end (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); a first vertical support portion provided at the first end (22, see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); a second vertical support portion provided at the second end (26, see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); a main beam spaced from the ground by at least the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion ([640, 650] - Fig. 14); and a support platform (32 - Fig. 14) extending between the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion (see Fig. 14), the support platform including: the translating beam (see Fig. 14), a first end member adjacent the first end and supporting at least a portion of the first vertical support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake), and a second end member adjacent the second end and supporting at least a portion of the second vertical support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); wherein the main beam is configured to support a patient thereon (Fig. 16 and Para 0062); and wherein the translating beam is configured to move between a first lateral position (Para 0066: "In the illustrative embodiments, strut 30 includes a first segment 40 and a second segment 42. In some embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for telescopic movement and in other embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for pivoting movement. In either case, segments 40, 42 are movable relative to each other, such as by telescoping or folding, to permit columns 22, 26 to move closer together for compact storage when the respective patient support apparatus is not in use and the respective patient support frame is detached from the columns 22, 26. In other embodiments, strut 30 is a single segment that does not telescope, fold, or otherwise move to permit the spacing between columns 22, 26 to be altered.", noting that the closer position is considered a first lateral position) and a second lateral position relative to the first end member and the second end member of the support platform (Para 0066: "In the illustrative embodiments, strut 30 includes a first segment 40 and a second segment 42. In some embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for telescopic movement and in other embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for pivoting movement. In either case, segments 40, 42 are movable relative to each other, such as by telescoping or folding, to permit columns 22, 26 to move closer together for compact storage when the respective patient support apparatus is not in use and the respective patient support frame is detached from the columns 22, 26. In other embodiments, strut 30 is a single segment that does not telescope, fold, or otherwise move to permit the spacing between columns 22, 26 to be altered.", noting that the further away position is considered a second lateral position).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake
In regards to Claim 2, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 1, wherein the translating beam includes a first end interconnected and moveable with respect to the first end member of the support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake), and a second end interconnected and moveable with respect to the second end member of the support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake).
In regards to Claim 3, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 2, wherein the main beam is rotatable about an axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake), and a majority of the translating beam is located on a first side of the axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) when at the first lateral position and a majority of the translating beam is located on a second side of the axis of rotation when at the second lateral position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake).
PNG
media_image2.png
407
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake
In regards to Claim 4, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 3, wherein the main beam is rotatable between at least a first rotational position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) and a second rotational position to correspondingly rotate the patient supported thereby (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake).
In regards to Claim 5, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 4, wherein the reconfigurable surgical frame is configured to automatically position the translating beam under the patient as the patient is rotated by the main beam (Fig. 17 shows that the translating beam is automatically always positioned under the patient as the main beam rotates).
In regards to Claim 6, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 5, wherein portions of the translating beam can be positioned to avoid contact with feet and/or legs of a surgeon operating on the patient (as you transition the device to a rotating configuration in Fig. 17, if the surgeon is operating on the patient along their back side they will avoid contact with the feet and/or legs of a surgeon).
In regards to Claim 10, Drake teaches: A reconfigurable surgical frame (600 - Fig. 14) including a translating lower beam (30 - Fig. 14), the reconfigurable surgical frame comprising: a first end (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); an expandable and contractable first vertical support portion provided at the first end ("Each column 22, 26 includes a carriage 32, a substantially vertical first tubular segment 34 extending upwardly from the carriage 32, and a substantially vertical second tubular segment 36 that extends and retracts relative to the first tubular segment 34. Each of the carriages 32 extend generally parallel with a lateral dimension of the respective patient support apparatus and each carriage 32 is supported with respect to an underlying floor by a pair of casters 38.", i.e. adjustment of height is possible to permit transfer); an expandable and contractable second vertical support portion provided at the second end ("Each column 22, 26 includes a carriage 32, a substantially vertical first tubular segment 34 extending upwardly from the carriage 32, and a substantially vertical second tubular segment 36 that extends and retracts relative to the first tubular segment 34. Each of the carriages 32 extend generally parallel with a lateral dimension of the respective patient support apparatus and each carriage 32 is supported with respect to an underlying floor by a pair of casters 38.", i.e. adjustment of height is possible to permit transfer); a rotatable main beam spaced from the ground by at least the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion ([640, 650] - Fig. 14, also see Fig. 17), and being rotatable between a first rotational position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) and a second rotational position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake, noting that the patient can also be flipped to the opposite side, 90 degrees along their right side, not shown - noting that left side 90 degree movement is shown in Fig. 17); and a support platform (32 - Fig. 14) extending between the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion (see Fig. 14), the support platform including: the translating beam (see Fig. 14), a first end member adjacent the first end and supporting at least a portion of the first vertical support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake), and a second end member adjacent the second end and supporting at least a portion of the second vertical support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake), the translating beam including a first end interconnected and moveable with respect to the first end member of the support portion, and a second end interconnected and moveable with respect to the second end member of the support portion (Para 0135-0136, Figs. 16-17); wherein the rotatable main beam is configured to support a patient thereon (Fig. 16 and Para 0062); and wherein the translating beam is configured to move between a first lateral position (Para 0066: "In the illustrative embodiments, strut 30 includes a first segment 40 and a second segment 42. In some embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for telescopic movement and in other embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for pivoting movement. In either case, segments 40, 42 are movable relative to each other, such as by telescoping or folding, to permit columns 22, 26 to move closer together for compact storage when the respective patient support apparatus is not in use and the respective patient support frame is detached from the columns 22, 26. In other embodiments, strut 30 is a single segment that does not telescope, fold, or otherwise move to permit the spacing between columns 22, 26 to be altered.", noting that the closer position is considered a first lateral position) and a second lateral position relative to the first end member and the second end member of the support platform (Para 0066: "In the illustrative embodiments, strut 30 includes a first segment 40 and a second segment 42. In some embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for telescopic movement and in other embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for pivoting movement. In either case, segments 40, 42 are movable relative to each other, such as by telescoping or folding, to permit columns 22, 26 to move closer together for compact storage when the respective patient support apparatus is not in use and the respective patient support frame is detached from the columns 22, 26. In other embodiments, strut 30 is a single segment that does not telescope, fold, or otherwise move to permit the spacing between columns 22, 26 to be altered.", noting that the further away position is considered a second lateral position).
In regards to Claim 11, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 10, wherein the rotatable main beam is rotatable about an axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake), and a majority of the translating be am is located on a first side of the axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) when at the first lateral position and a majority of the translating beam is located on a second side of the axis of rotation when at the second lateral position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake).
In regards to Claim 12, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 11, wherein the rotatable main beam is rotatable between the first rotational position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) and the second rotational position to correspondingly rotate the patient supported thereby (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake).
In regards to Claim 13, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 12, wherein the reconfigurable surgical frame is configured to automatically position the translating beam under the patient as the patient is rotated by the rotatable main beam (Fig. 17 shows that the translating beam is automatically always positioned under the patient as the main beam rotates).
In regards to Claim 14, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 12, wherein portions of the translating beam can be positioned to avoid contact with feet and/or legs of a surgeon operating on the patient (as you transition the device to a rotating configuration in Fig. 17, if the surgeon is operating on the patient along their back side they will avoid contact with the feet and/or legs of a surgeon).
In regards to Claim 18, Drake teaches: A reconfigurable surgical frame (600 - Fig. 14) including a translating lower beam (30 - Fig. 14), the reconfigurable surgical frame comprising: a first end (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake); an expandable and contractable first vertical support portion provided at the first end ("Each column 22, 26 includes a carriage 32, a substantially vertical first tubular segment 34 extending upwardly from the carriage 32, and a substantially vertical second tubular segment 36 that extends and retracts relative to the first tubular segment 34. Each of the carriages 32 extend generally parallel with a lateral dimension of the respective patient support apparatus and each carriage 32 is supported with respect to an underlying floor by a pair of casters 38.", i.e. adjustment of height is possible to permit transfer); an expandable and contractable second vertical support portion provided at the second end ("Each column 22, 26 includes a carriage 32, a substantially vertical first tubular segment 34 extending upwardly from the carriage 32, and a substantially vertical second tubular segment 36 that extends and retracts relative to the first tubular segment 34. Each of the carriages 32 extend generally parallel with a lateral dimension of the respective patient support apparatus and each carriage 32 is supported with respect to an underlying floor by a pair of casters 38.", i.e. adjustment of height is possible to permit transfer); a main beam spaced from the ground by at least the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion ([640, 650] - Fig. 14), and being moveable between a first rotational position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) and a second rotational position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake, noting that the patient can also be flipped to the opposite side, 90 degrees along their right side, not shown - noting that left side 90 degree movement is shown in Fig. 17); and a support platform (32 - Fig. 14) extending between the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion (see Fig. 14), the support platform including: the translating beam (see Fig. 14), a first end member adjacent the first end and supporting at least a portion of the first vertical support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake), and a second end member adjacent the second end and supporting at least a portion of the second vertical support portion (see annotated Fig. 14.1 from Drake), the translating beam including a first end moveably interconnected with respect to the first end member of the support portion (Para 0135-0136, Figs. 16-17), and a second end moveably interconnected with respect to the second end member of the support portion (Para 0135-0136, Figs. 16-17); wherein the main beam is configured to support a patient thereon (Fig. 16 and Para 0062); and wherein moveable interconnections of the translating beam with the first end member and the second end member of the support portion affords movement of the translating beam between a first lateral position (Para 0066: "In the illustrative embodiments, strut 30 includes a first segment 40 and a second segment 42. In some embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for telescopic movement and in other embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for pivoting movement. In either case, segments 40, 42 are movable relative to each other, such as by telescoping or folding, to permit columns 22, 26 to move closer together for compact storage when the respective patient support apparatus is not in use and the respective patient support frame is detached from the columns 22, 26. In other embodiments, strut 30 is a single segment that does not telescope, fold, or otherwise move to permit the spacing between columns 22, 26 to be altered.", noting that the closer position is considered a first lateral position) and a second lateral position (Para 0066: "In the illustrative embodiments, strut 30 includes a first segment 40 and a second segment 42. In some embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for telescopic movement and in other embodiments, segments 40, 42 are coupled together for pivoting movement. In either case, segments 40, 42 are movable relative to each other, such as by telescoping or folding, to permit columns 22, 26 to move closer together for compact storage when the respective patient support apparatus is not in use and the respective patient support frame is detached from the columns 22, 26. In other embodiments, strut 30 is a single segment that does not telescope, fold, or otherwise move to permit the spacing between columns 22, 26 to be altered.", noting that the further away position is considered a second lateral position).
In regards to Claim 19, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 18, wherein the main beam is moveable about an axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake), and a majority of the translating beam is located on a first side of the axis of rotation (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake) when at the first lateral position and a majority of the translating beam is located on a second side of the axis of rotation when at the second lateral position (see annotated Fig. 17.1 from Drake).
In regards to Claim 20, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 18, wherein portions of the translating beam can be positioned to avoid contact with feet and/or legs of a surgeon operating on the patient (as you transition the device to a rotating configuration in Fig. 17, if the surgeon is operating on the patient along their back side they will avoid contact with the feet and/or legs of a surgeon).
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(s) 7-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drake (US 20160193099 A1) in view of Skripps et al., hereinafter 'Skripps' (US 20120144589 A1).
In regards to Claim 7, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 2, Drake does not explicitly teach, wherein the translating beam can be moved to create a patient receiving area under the main beam, the patient receiving area being configured to receive a table/gurney.
Skripps teaches: wherein the translating beam can be moved to create a patient receiving area under the main beam, the patient receiving area being configured to receive a table/gurney ("FIG. 40 is a view similar to FIG. 29 showing the surgical support arranged in a lateral position prior to transferring the patient from a stretcher adjacent the surgical support to the patient support;").
It would have been obvious to modify Drake to include a translating beam movable to create a patient receiving area under the main beam configured to receive a table/gurney, as taught by Skripps, in order to facilitate efficient patient transfer and positioning relative to the surgical frame.
In regards to Claim 8, Drake in view of Skripps teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 7, Drake further teaches, wherein each of the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion are expandable and contractable between an upper height position and a lower height position to correspondingly raise and lower the main beam to facilitate transfer of the patient from the table/gurney to the main beam ("Each column 22, 26 includes a carriage 32, a substantially vertical first tubular segment 34 extending upwardly from the carriage 32, and a substantially vertical second tubular segment 36 that extends and retracts relative to the first tubular segment 34. Each of the carriages 32 extend generally parallel with a lateral dimension of the respective patient support apparatus and each carriage 32 is supported with respect to an underlying floor by a pair of casters 38.", i.e. adjustment of height is possible to permit transfer).
In regards to Claim 9, Drake in view of Skripps teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 8, Skripps further teaches, wherein the main beam is rotatable to facilitate transfer from the table/gurney thereto (Figs. 39-53 indicate the rotation, transfer and re-rotation of the device to be able to transfer from the table/gurney).
It would have been obvious to modify Drake in view of Skripps to include a rotatable main beam to facilitate transfer from a table/gurney, as taught by Skripps, in order to improve ease of patient transfer and alignment during surgical procedures.
In regards to Claim 15, Drake teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 10, Drake does not explicitly teach, wherein the translating beam can be moved to create a patient receiving area under the rotatable main beam, the patient receiving area being configured to receive a table/gurney.
Skripps teaches: wherein the translating beam can be moved to create a patient receiving area under the rotatable main beam, the patient receiving area being configured to receive a table/gurney ("FIG. 40 is a view similar to FIG. 29 showing the surgical support arranged in a lateral position prior to transferring the patient from a stretcher adjacent the surgical support to the patient support;").
It would have been obvious to modify Drake to include a translating beam movable to create a patient receiving area under the rotatable main beam configured to receive a table/gurney, as taught by Skripps, in order to enable efficient patient transfer beneath the rotatable structure.
In regards to Claim 16, Drake in view of Skripps teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 15, Drake further teaches, wherein each of the first vertical support portion and the second vertical support portion are expandable and contractable between an upper height position and a lower height position to correspondingly raise and lower the rotatable main beam to facilitate transfer of the patient from the table/gurney to the rotatable main beam ("Each column 22, 26 includes a carriage 32, a substantially vertical first tubular segment 34 extending upwardly from the carriage 32, and a substantially vertical second tubular segment 36 that extends and retracts relative to the first tubular segment 34. Each of the carriages 32 extend generally parallel with a lateral dimension of the respective patient support apparatus and each carriage 32 is supported with respect to an underlying floor by a pair of casters 38.", i.e. adjustment of height is possible to permit transfer).
In regards to Claim 17, Drake in view of Skripps teaches: The reconfigurable surgical frame according to claim 16, Skripps further teaches, wherein the rotatable main beam is rotatable to facilitate transfer from the table/gurney thereto (Figs. 39-53 indicate the rotation, transfer and re-rotation of the device to be able to transfer from the table/gurney).
It would have been obvious to modify Drake in view of Skripps to include a rotatable main beam configured to facilitate transfer from a table/gurney, as taught by Skripps, in order to enhance patient transfer and positioning capabilities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newkirk (US 20040133983 A1) teaches: A patient-support apparatus, such as a surgical table, includes a longitudinally-extending base supported on a floor and a longitudinally-extending deck supported above the base by first and second lift assemblies. The deck is articulatable to support a patient in selected positions. The lift assemblies are extendible in a vertical direction. The base is extendible in the longitudinal direction.
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
Prosecution Insights