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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments, filed June 8, 2026, have been entered. Claims 22, 28, and 37 have been amended. Claims 1-21 had previously been cancelled. Claims 22-41 are currently pending in the application.
The amendments to claim 28 have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant’s arguments, on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, regarding the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive and the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant argue, on pages 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks, that the previous cited prior art of Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 3,810,263) cited in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of independent claims 22 and 27, does not anticipate the newly amended subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regard to claim 22, newly amended claim 22 requires that, in response to deformation of the patient bearing device, the at least two support rolls can only be pivoted together with respect to other parts of the support device such that a load from the patient bearing device is distributed between the at least two support rolls of the first group. Firstly, it is noted that the claim 22 does not only require that the support rolls are configured to pivot in response to deformation of the patient bearing device, only that they “can only be pivoted with respect to other parts of support device” (emphasis added) when the patient bearing device is deformed. A recitation of a functional limitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed function, then it meets the claim. As Taylor discloses that the support rolls 50 of the first group (defined by the support rolls 50 on frame members 15 and 16) can only be pivoted together (via hinge 20) with respect to other parts of the support device 14 (Figures 1-2 and Col. 2, lines 28-60) regardless of whether there is a load present on the patient bearing device, then Taylor meets the claim. Additionally, with regard to the limitation of “a load from the patient bearing device is distributed between the at least two support rolls of the first group” present in claims 22 and 37, it is noted that any time a load is present on the patient bearing device when the patient bearing device is located on the support rolls 50, that load is inherently distributed across the support rolls as the patient bearing device is placed directly on top of the support rolls and force is inherently spread out in some manner over the area of the patient bearing device (see Figure 3 where patient bearing device 22 rests on top of the support rolls 50).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 22-25, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 3,810,263).
Regarding claim 22, Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 3,810,263) discloses a patient positioning system usable as a part of a medical table 11 (Figure 2), the patient positioning system comprising: a patient bearing device 22 configured to bear a patient (Figure 1 and Col. 2, lines 28-60); and a support device 14 on which the patient bearing device 22 lies (Figures 1-2), the patient bearing device 22 being movable with respect to the support device 14 to thereby facilitate movement of a patient thereon (Figure 1 and Col. 2, lines 28-60), the support device 14 comprising a plurality of support rolls 50 configured to bear and displace the patient bearing device 22, the support rolls 50 being rotatable about their respective rotational axes independently of one another (Col. 3 line 51-Col. 4, line 2 and Figures 3-4B), and at least two of the support rolls 50 form a first group (defined by the support rolls 50 on frame members 15 and 16) and the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group are adjustable in height (Col. 3, lines 42-50 and Figure 2) and, in response to deformation of the patient bearing device 22 the at least two support rolls can only be pivoted together (via hinge 20) with respect to other parts of the support device 14 such that a load from the patient bearing device 22 is distributed between the at least two support rolls of the first group (Figures 1-2 and Col. 2, lines 28-60).
Regarding claim 23, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses wherein the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Figure 1), and the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group are pivotably connected to the other parts of the support device by one or more pivoting engagements 20, and/or the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group extend below the patient bearing device 22 along the total width of the patient bearing device 22 (Figures 1-2 and Col. 2, lines 28-60).
Regarding claim 24, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses first and second bearing blocks 15 and 16, the first bearing block 15 bearing first ends of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group and the second bearing block 16 bearing second ends of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group such that the rotational axes of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group are aligned substantially parallel to one another (Figures 1-4B and Col. 2, line 61-Col. 3, line 28).
Regarding claim 25, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 22 and 24. Taylor further discloses wherein the first and second bearing blocks 15 and 16 can be pivoted about a common pivot axis (via hinge 20, Figure 2 and Col. 2, lines 28-40).
Regarding claim 29, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 22 and 24. Taylor further discloses wherein: at least one of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group has a supporting section (defined by the central portion of the rolls 50 which underlie bearing device 22, Figure 1) configured to bear the patient bearing device 22, and a bearing section (defined by the end section of the rolls 50 attached to the bearing blocks 15 and 16, Figure 3) configured to rotatably connect the at least one support roll to its respective one of the first and second bearing blocks 15 and 16 (Figure 3 and Col. 3, line 51-Col. 4, line 2, where the rollers may be attached via ball bearings), the bearing section being fixedly connected to the supporting section (Figures 1-3), and the bearing section is rotatably connected to the first and second bearing blocks 15 and 16 via bearings (Figure 3 and Col. 3, line 51-Col. 4, line 2, where the rollers may be attached via ball bearings).
Regarding claim 31, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses wherein: at least one of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group has a supporting section configured to bear the patient bearing device, and the supporting section (defined by the central portion of the rolls 50 which underlie bearing device 22, Figure 1) has a flat or profiled surface (Figures 1-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 32, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses wherein: at least one of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group has a supporting section (defined by the central portion of the rolls 50 which underlie bearing device 22, Figure 1) configured to bear the patient bearing device 22, and the patient bearing device 22 has a surface configured to be borne by the supporting section (Figures 1-2), the surface of the patient bearing device 22 having a shape that is complementary to a shape of the supporting section (Figures 1-3 and 6).
Regarding claim 34, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses when the patient bearing device 22 bends, the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group pivot together with respect to the other parts of the support device 11 such that the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group stay in contact with the patient bearing device 22 during the bending (Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 36, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses a medical table 11, comprising a column 45, and a patient positioning system according to claim 22 (see discussion of claim 22, above), the patient positioning system being fixedly or detachably connected to the column 45 (Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 29-50).
Regarding claim 37, Taylor discloses a patient positioning system usable as a part of a medical table 11 (Figures 1-2), the patient positioning system comprising: a patient bearing device 22 configured to bear a patient (Figure 1 and Col. 2, lines 28-60); a pair of support rolls 50 on which the patient bearing device 22 lies, the patient bearing device 22 being movable with respect to the pair of support rolls 50 to thereby facilitate movement of a patient (Col. 3 line 51-Col. 4, line 2 and Figures 3-4B), and each of the support rolls 50 of the pair of support rolls 50 being independently rotatable about its respective rotational axis (Col. 3 line 51-Col. 4, line 2 and Figures 3-4B); the pair of support rolls 50 being configured such that in response to deformation of the patient bearing device 22 a load from the patient bearing device is distributed between the support rolls 50 of the pair of support rolls 50 (Figures 1-2 and Col. 2, lines 28-60); and a height adjustment element 15, 16, 45 configured to adjust a height of the pair of support rolls 50 (Figure 2 and Col. 3, lines 42-50 and Figure 2).
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Patterson (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0289101).
Regarding claim 30, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses wherein: at least one of the at least two support rolls 50 of the first group has a supporting section (defined by the central portion of the rolls 50 which underlie bearing device 22, Figure 1) configured to bear an underside of the patient bearing device 22 (Figures 1-2).
Taylor does not disclose the supporting section and/or the underside of the patient bearing device are coated with an elastomer.
Patterson (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0289101) teaches the supporting section 72 and/or the underside of the patient bearing device are coated with an elastomer (paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Taylor with Patterson (both being directed to a patient lift and transfer table) such that the supporting section and/or the underside of the patient bearing device are coated with an elastomer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the elastomeric coating of Patterson increases the frictional engagement of the rollers with the patient bearing device (paragraph 0049).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Montero (Patent Publication No. WO 2016/113435 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor further discloses wherein: the patient bearing device 22 comprises a longitudinal and substantially flat surface (Figures 1-2) that is substantially radiotransparent and configured to bear a patient thereon (Col. 2, lines 28-60), and the patient positioning system is configured for use as a part of a medical imaging table.
Taylor does not disclose the patient bearing device being substantially radiotransparent and being configured for use as a part of a medical imaging table.
Montero (Patent Publication No. WO 2016/113435 A1) teaches the patient bearing device 5 being substantially radiotransparent and being configured for use as a part of a medical imaging table (Figure 1 and paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Taylor (directed to a patient lift and transfer table) with Fergni (directed to a patient transfer board) such that the patient bearing device is substantially radiotransparent and is configured for use as a part of a medical imaging table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because radiotransparent materials would allow the patient support to be used to take x-rays (Figure 1 and paragraph 0066).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor.
Regarding claim 35, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 22. Taylor does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two support rolls of the first group can be pivoted together only in a pivot range of 20 degrees or less with respect to the other parts of the support device.
It nevertheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Taylor such that the at least two support rolls of the first group can be pivoted together only in a pivot range of 20 degrees or less with respect to the other parts of the support device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a change in length of the extendable arm of Taylor that would not provide unexpected results. Shortening the length of the extendable arm of Taylor would predictably result in a smaller maximum angle that the first group may be pivoted to. Moreover, Applicant has not disclosed that providing such a range of angular adjustment itself solves any stated problem, the claimed range does not provide any unexpected result, and it appears that the invention would perform equally well where the claimed pivot range is larger or smaller than 20 degrees or less such that no criticality of the claimed range has been established. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Fergni (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,225).
Regarding claim 38, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claim 37. Taylor further discloses wherein the height adjustment element comprises: first and second bearing blocks 15 and 16, the first bearing block bearing 15 first ends of the pair of support rolls 50 and the second bearing block 60 bearing second ends of the pair of support rolls 50;
Taylor does not disclose first and second threaded elements, the first threaded element configured to adjust the height of the first bearing block, and the second threaded element configured to adjust the height of the second bearing block.
Fergni (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,225) first and second threaded elements 14, the first threaded element 14 configured to adjust the height of the first bearing block 38, and the second threaded element 14 configured to adjust the height of the second bearing block 38 (Figures 2-4 and Col. 1, line 66-Col. 2, line 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Taylor (directed to a patient lift and transfer table) with Fergni (directed to a patient lift table) and arrived at first and second threaded elements, the first and second threaded elements configured to adjust the height of the first and second bearing blocks, respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because doing so would merely amount to a simple substitution of one known element (the hydraulic cylinder of Taylor) for another (the threaded rods of Fergni) that would not produce unexpected results as the hydraulic cylinder of Taylor and threaded rods of Fergni are both telescopic supporting elements capable of lifting portions of a patient support to a desired height (see Taylor, Figure 2 and Fergni, Figures 2-4 and Col. 1, line 66-Col. 2, line 23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-28 and 39-41 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 26 and 39, Taylor discloses the subject matter as discussed above with regard to claims 22, 24, and 37-38. Taylor does not disclose first and second support blocks configured to pivotably bear the first and second bearing blocks, wherein the first and second support blocks each have a first bearing section on which a respective second bearing section of the corresponding first or second bearing block is received, each of the first bearing sections of the first and second support blocks having a shape that is complementary to a shape of the second bearing section of the corresponding first or second bearing block.
In the device of Taylor, the support rolls 50 are provided in a conveyor belt-like construction to transfer a patient from one end of the patient support device to the other. While support rolls 50 of the first group (defined by the group of support rolls 50 attached to bearing blocks 15 and 16) are capable of pivoting with respect to support rolls 50 which are attached to additional bearing blocks to support and transport a patient in both a lying down and an upright position. There would be no motivation to modify Taylor such that the bearing blocks are further pivotally connected to respective support blocks, as any pivoting of the bearing blocks independent of each other on either side of the support device would likely cause a decrease in stability to the device of Taylor. As such, there is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in the prior art of record such that a rejection of either claims 26 or 39 may be reasonably rejected. Claims 27-28 and 40-41 are additionally objected to by virtue of their dependence from claims 26 and 39, respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISON N LABARGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6098. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:00.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/ALISON N LABARGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights