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 21-40 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 01/18/2025 (2), 05/06/2025 and 05/08/2025 have been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘a first positioner portion' and 'a second positioner portion’ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 21-40 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 “can be” in claim(s) 21, 29 (two recitations) and 37 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 independent claims. The examiner further suggests amending the claim to “… [[can be]] is configured to …”.
Claim(s) 22-28, 30-36 and 38-40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim(s) 21, 29 and 37, respectively).
The term “accommodate patients of different sizes” in claim(s) 27 and 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “accommodate patients of different sizes” 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. "Different sizes" is relative because it has no fixed, objective boundary. Standing alone, the claimed limitation does not define the boundaries of the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not know exactly what range of patient sizes (e.g., pediatric, bariatric, or a specific weight/dimension) is covered. Specifically, the Examiner notes if there is specific disclosure reciting ‘accommodate patients weighing between 100 to 400 lbs’ then the indefiniteness rejection would be overcome by such explicit definition, description or example.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "'The surgical platform of claim 1'". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Notably, Claim 1 is presently canceled, and the Examiner is unsure if this claim was intended to be dependent upon Claim 21 or a different independent claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as being under the first set of independent claims (i.e. Claim 21, yet clarification and amendment is necessary).
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the support structure". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites ‘the support structure’ without first introducing it as ‘a support structure’. Consequently, it is unclear what specific element the claim is referring to, rendering the scope of the invention vague and indefinite (i.e. a new element or a previously recited element). Clarification is further needed, and for examination purposes, the Examiner was treating this as a new element.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the vertically-oriented portion" and “the horizontally-oriented portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim recites ‘the vertically-oriented portion’ and ‘the horizontally-oriented portion’ without first introducing it in primary antecedent form(s). Consequently, it is unclear what specific element the claim is referring to, rendering the scope of the invention vague and indefinite (i.e. a new element or a previously recited element). Clarification is further needed, and for examination purposes, the Examiner was treating these as a new element.
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) 21, 25-29, 33-37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al., hereinafter 'Lee' (US 20210236369 A1).
In regards to Claim 21, Lee teaches: A surgical platform system (10 - Fig. 1 and 21) comprising: a first platform portion (30 - Fig. 1) and a support portion supporting the first platform portion (41 - Fig. 5, Para 0077), the support portion supporting the first platform portion and spacing the first platform portion from a floor (Fig. 21, showing floor or ground surface), and including an adjustment portion configured to at least one of rotate and tilt the first platform portion (50 - Figs. 4-8, Para 0074 and 75 - Fig. 10, and 76 - Fig. 11); and the first platform portion including a first end (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), a first end portion at the first end of the first platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), a second end portion at the second end of the first platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), at least a first rail and a second rail extending between the first end portion and the second end portion of the first platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), and at least one upper body support portion supported by the at least the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion (85 - Fig. 10); and a second platform portion (25 - Fig. 3) including a first end (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), a first end portion at the first end of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig.5.2 from Lee), a second end portion at the second end of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), at least a first rail and a second rail extending between the first end portion and the second end portion of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), and at least one lower body support portion supported by the at least the first rail and the second rail of the second platform portion (80a, 80b - Fig. 4); wherein the support portion is positionable relative to a robotic system (Fig. 3 shows support portion 41 positionable - further noting Para 0111: "It will be appreciated that in other configurations, different drive mechanisms and/or linkages between the upper portion 145 and lower portion 140 may be used, such as rack and pinion, a hypoid, a spiral bevel gear, etc. In some embodiments the mechanism is manually operated, and in other embodiments the mechanism is driven by an electric motor, which can be controlled with the push of a button or other actuator proximal to the patient and/or bolster assemblies or from a remote device."), and the first end portion of the second platform portion is supported relative to the robotic system (Para 0111, Fig. 28), and, when the support portion is positioned relative to the robotic system (Para 0111, Fig. 28), the first platform portion and the second platform portion are positioned adjacent to one another (Fig. 1) and separated by a gap between the first end of the first platform portion and the second end of the second platform portion (Fig. 1); and wherein the first platform portion can be at least one of rotated and tilted relative to the second platform portion to position/orient and reposition/reorient portions of a patient supported by the first platform portion and the second platform portion (Fig. 3 and Para 0078).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.1 from Lee
PNG
media_image2.png
322
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee
PNG
media_image3.png
273
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee (flipped view for second platform portion, shown in Figs. 1-3)
In regards to Claim 25, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 21, wherein the adjustment portion is configured to tilt the first end of the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the vertically-oriented portion and the horizontally-oriented portion (see annotated Fig. 12.1 from Lee), and configured to rotate the first platform portion side-to-side relative to the vertically-oriented portion and the horizontally-oriented portion (see annotated Fig. 12.1 from Lee).
PNG
media_image4.png
406
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 12.1 from Lee
In regards to Claim 26, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 21, further comprising a first positioner portion (114 - Fig. 32)attached to the first support structure and a second positioner portion attached relative to the robotic system (143 - Fig. 32), and engagement of the first positioner portion and the second positioner portion initially positions the support portion relative to the robotic system (Fig. 32).
In regards to Claim 27, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 26, wherein positioning of the first support structure relative to robotic system via positioning of the first positioner portion relative to the second positioner portion correspondingly adjusts a length of the first platform portion and the second platform portion to accommodate patients of different sizes (Fig. 23 and Para 0085).
In regards to Claim 28, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 1, wherein the second platform portion is at least one of moveable upwardly/downwardly, rotatable, and tiltable by the robotic system relative to the first platform portion (Fig. 8 and Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 29, Lee teaches: A surgical platform system (10 - Fig. 1 and 21) comprising: a first platform portion (30 - Fig. 1) and a support portion supporting the first platform portion (41 - Fig. 5, Para 0077), the support portion supporting the first platform portion and spacing the first platform portion from a floor (Fig. 21, showing floor or ground surface), and including an adjustment portion configured to at least one of rotate and tilt the first platform portion (50 - Figs. 4-8, Para 0074 and 75 - Fig. 10, and 76 - Fig. 11); and the first platform portion including a first end (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), a first end portion at the first end of the first platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), a second end portion at the second end of the first platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), at least a first rail and a second rail extending between the first end portion and the second end portion of the first platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.1 from Lee), and at least one upper body support portion supported by the at least the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion (85 - Fig. 10); and a second platform portion (25 - Fig. 3) including a first end (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), an opposite second end (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), a first end portion at the first end of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), a second end portion at the second end of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), at least a first rail and a second rail extending between the first end portion and the second end portion of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), and at least one lower body support portion supported by the at least the first rail and the second rail of the second platform portion (80a, 80b - Fig. 4); wherein the support portion is positionable relative to a robotic system (Fig. 3 shows support portion 41 positionable - further noting Para 0111), and the first end portion of the second platform portion is supported relative to the robotic system (Para 0111, Fig. 28), and, when the support portion is positioned relative to the robotic system (Para 0111, Fig. 28), the first platform portion and the second platform portion are positioned adjacent to one another (Fig. 1) and separated by a gap between the first end of the first platform portion and the second end of the second platform portion (Fig. 1); and wherein the first platform portion can be at least one of rotated and tilted by the adjustment portion of the support portion relative to the second platform portion (50 - Figs. 4-11, Paras. 0074-0076), and the second platform portion can be at least one of rotated and tilted by the robotic system relative to the first platform portion (Fig. 8, Fig. 28, Para 0111), relative rotating and tilting of the first platform portion and the second platform portion affording manipulation of an upper body portion of a patient supported by the first platform portion and a lower body portion of the patient supported by the second platform portion (Fig. 3 and Para 0078).
In regards to Claim 33, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 29, wherein the adjustment portion is configured to tilt the first end of the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the vertically-oriented portion and the horizontally-oriented portion (see annotated Fig. 12.1 from Lee), and configured to rotate the first platform portion side-to-side relative to the vertically-oriented portion and the horizontally-oriented portion (see annotated Fig. 12.1 from Lee).
In regards to Claim 34, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 29, further comprising a first positioner portion (114 - Fig. 32) attached to the first support structure and a second positioner portion attached relative to the robotic system (143 - Fig. 32), and engagement of the first positioner portion and the second positioner portion initially positions the support portion relative to the robotic system (Fig. 32).
In regards to Claim 35, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 34, wherein positioning of the first support structure relative to robotic system via positioning of the first positioner portion relative to the second positioner portion correspondingly adjusts a length of the first platform portion and the second platform portion to accommodate patients of different sizes (Fig. 23; Para 0085).
In regards to Claim 36, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 29, wherein the second platform portion is moveable upwardly/downwardly by the robotic system relative to the first platform portion (Fig. 8; Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 37, Lee teaches: A surgical platform system (10 - Fig. 1 and 21) comprising: a first platform portion (30 - Fig. 1) and a support portion supporting the first platform portion (41 - Fig. 5, Para 0077), the support portion supporting the first platform portion and spacing the first platform portion from a floor (Fig. 21), and including an adjustment portion configured to at least one of rotate and tilt the first platform portion (50 - Figs. 4-11, Para 0074-0076); and the first platform portion including a first end, an opposite second end, a first end portion at the first end of the first platform portion, a second end portion at the second end of the first platform portion, at least a first rail and a second rail extending between the first end portion and the second end portion of the first platform portion, and at least one upper body support portion supported by the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion (85 - Fig. 10); and a second platform portion (25 - Fig. 3) and a surgical robotic system supporting the second platform portion (Fig. 28; Para 0111), the second platform portion including a first end, an opposite second end, at least a first rail and a second rail extending between the first end and the second end of the second platform portion (see annotated Fig. 5.2 from Lee), and at least one lower body support portion supported by the first rail and the second rail of the second platform portion (80a, 80b - Fig. 4), the surgical robotic system supporting the first end of the second platform portion (Fig. 28; Para 0111), and being configured to at least one of rotate and tilt the second platform portion (Fig. 3, Fig. 8, Fig. 28); wherein the support portion is positionable relative to the robotic system (Fig. 28; Para 0111), and, when the support portion is positioned relative to the robotic system, the first platform portion and the second platform portion are positioned adjacent to one another and separated by a gap between the first end of the first platform portion and the second end of the second platform portion (Fig. 1); and wherein each of the first platform portion and the second platform portion can be at least one of rotated and tilted relative to one another to position/orient and reposition/reorient portions of a patient supported by the first platform portion and the second platform portion (Fig. 3; Fig. 8; Para 0078).
In regards to Claim 40, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 37, further comprising a first positioner portion (114 - Fig. 32) attached to the first support structure and a second positioner portion attached relative to the robotic system (143 - Fig. 32), and engagement of the first positioner portion and the second positioner portion initially positions the support portion relative to the robotic system (Fig. 32).
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) 22, 30 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Lee' (US 20210236369 A1) in view of Hight et al., hereinafter 'Hight' (US 20150245969 A1)
In regards to Claim 22, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 21, wherein the support structure includes a horizontally-oriented portion (15, 20 - Fig. 1) and a vertically-oriented portion (Fig. 21 on vertical support framing structures) show spacing the first platform portion from the horizontally-oriented portion (see annotated Fig. 21.1 from Lee), but Lee does not explicitly teach, the vertically-oriented portion being expandable and contractible between a first height and a second height to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion.
Hight teaches: the vertically-oriented portion being expandable and contractible between a first height and a second height to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion (Fig. 42 shows the adjustability via holes 266 being able to move upward and downward to different first and second heights, further noting Para 0265-0266).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the support structure of Lee to incorporate the adjustable vertically-oriented portion taught by Hight, wherein the vertically-oriented portion is expandable and contractible between different heights to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion. Doing so would have predictably enabled height adjustment of the surgical platform to accommodate different patients, procedures, and user preferences while maintaining the intended support function of the platform.
PNG
media_image5.png
460
435
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 21.1 from Lee
In regards to Claim 30, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 29, wherein the support structure includes a horizontally-oriented portion (15, 20 - Fig. 1) and a vertically-oriented portion (Fig. 21) spacing the first platform portion from the horizontally-oriented portion, but Lee does not explicitly teach: the vertically-oriented portion being expandable and contractible between a first height and a second height to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion.
Hight teaches: the vertically-oriented portion being expandable and contractible between a first height and a second height to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion (Fig. 42; Para 0265-0266).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vertically-oriented support structure of Lee with the adjustable height support arrangement taught by Hight in order to permit selective vertical adjustment of the supported platform relative to the floor. Doing so would have predictably enabled accommodation of different patient positioning requirements, improved ergonomic access for caregivers, and enhanced versatility of the surgical platform while preserving Lee’s intended function of supporting and orienting a patient during a surgical procedure.
In regards to Claim 38, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 37, wherein the support structure includes a horizontally-oriented portion (15, 20 - Fig. 1) and a vertically-oriented portion (Fig. 21) spacing the first platform portion from the horizontally-oriented portion, but Lee does not explicitly teach, the vertically-oriented portion being expandable and contractible between a first height and a second height to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion.
Hight teaches: the vertically-oriented portion being expandable and contractible between a first height and a second height to correspondingly move the first platform portion upwardly and downwardly relative to the horizontally-oriented portion (Fig. 42; Para 0265-0266).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the vertically-oriented support structure of Lee with the adjustable height support arrangement taught by Hight in order to permit selective vertical adjustment of the supported platform relative to the floor. Doing so would have predictably enabled accommodation of different patient positioning requirements, improved ergonomic access for caregivers, and enhanced versatility of the surgical platform while preserving Lee’s intended function.
Claim(s) 23-24, 31-32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Lee' (US 20210236369 A1) in view of Garrido (US 10342722 B2).
In regards to Claim 23, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 21, wherein the at least one upper body support portion includes [[a head support]] and a chest support (85 - Fig. 10), [[and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion.]]
Lee does not explicitly teach: a head support, and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion.
Garrido teaches: wherein the at least one upper body support portion includes a head support (306(3) - Fig. 4B), and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the surgical platform of Lee to incorporate the head support and supporting platen arrangement taught by Garrido. Doing so would have predictably improved patient positioning and support by providing dedicated support for the patient’s head and upper body while maintaining the intended functionality of the surgical platform.
In regards to Claim 24, Lee in view of Garrido teaches: The surgical platform of claim 23, Garrido further teaches, wherein the at least one lower body support portion includes a first thigh support portion (306(N3) and 306(5) - Fig. 4) attached to the first rail and a second thigh support portion attached to the second rail (Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the first and second thigh support portions taught by Garrido into the surgical platform of Lee. Doing so would have predictably enhanced lower-body support, stability, and patient positioning during surgical procedures while preserving the intended operation of the platform.
In regards to Claim 31, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 29, wherein the at least one upper body support portion includes a chest support (85 - Fig. 10), but Lee does not explicitly teach, a head support and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion.
Garrido teaches: wherein the at least one upper body support portion includes a head support (306(3) - Fig. 4B), and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion (Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper body support arrangement of Lee to include the head support and platen-supported support structure taught by Garrido. Garrido expressly teaches supporting upper body portions of a patient using support members carried between opposing rails. Incorporating Garrido’s support arrangement into Lee would have predictably improved patient support, positioning stability, and accommodation of anatomical regions during surgical procedures.
In regards to Claim 32, Lee in view of Garrido teaches: The surgical platform of claim 31, Garrido further teaches, wherein the at least one lower body support portion includes a first thigh support portion (306(N3), 306(5) - Fig. 4B) attached to the first rail and a second thigh support portion attached to the second rail (Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate Garrido’s thigh support portions into the surgical platform of Lee because Garrido teaches supporting lower portions of a patient through support members mounted relative to opposing rails. The modification would have predictably enhanced patient support and positioning while maintaining the intended operation of Lee’s surgical platform.
In regards to Claim 39, Lee teaches: The surgical platform of claim 37, wherein the at least one upper body support portion includes a chest support (85 - Fig. 10), but Lee does not explicitly teach, a head support and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion.
Garrido teaches: wherein the at least one upper body support portion includes a head support (306(3) - Fig. 4B), and further comprising at least one platen supporting the head support and the chest support, the at least one platen being supported between the first rail and the second rail of the first platform portion (Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the upper body support arrangement of Lee to include the head support and platen-supported support structure taught by Garrido in order to improve patient support and positioning during surgery while maintaining the intended operation of Lee’s platform system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Skripps (US 20120144589 A1) teaches: A patient support for use with a foundation frame is disclosed. The foundation frame includes a first column and a second column. The patient support includes a base beam, a leg support, and a guide. The base beam is coupleable to the foundation frame to be supported by the first column and the second column. The leg support has a first end pivotably coupled to the base beam and a second end spaced apart from the first end. The, guide is coupled to the base beam and to the second end of the leg support. The guide is configured to guide the second end of the leg support along an arcuate path when the leg support pivots relative to the base beam.
Jackson (US 7565708 B2) teaches: A patient support system includes independently adjustable end columns supporting a centrally hinged, jointed or breaking patient support structure. At least one column includes a powered rotation assembly. The patient support includes at least two sections. A coordinated drive system provides for both upwardly and downwardly breaking or jointed orientations of the two sections in various inclined and tilted positions. Cable, cantilevered and pull-rod systems are included.
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
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
06/03/2025
Prosecution Insights