DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 19/200,544 filed May 6, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-21, as presented in the provisional amendments filed May 7, 2025, are currently pending.
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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuishi et al. (US 2004/0003468), in view of Shandas et al. (WO 2016/197142), and in further view of Ferreri et al. (US 2015/0351986).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, Mitsuishi discloses a distraction frame (repositioning apparatus 5) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0043) comprising:
a table mount (mounting plate 53) for removably mounting the distraction frame (5) to a surgical table (supporting bed 50) (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0044);
at least one horizontal strut (swinging arm 52 + supporting plate 56) mounted to the table mount (53) (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0044 & 0046);
at least one vertical strut (guide member 75 + intermediate member 76 + elevating member 77) mounted to the at least one horizontal strut (52+56) (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0062-0063); and
at least one distractor (lower leg supporting bed 58) mounted to the at least one vertical strut (75+76+77), wherein the at least one distractor (58) is configured for connecting to a limb of a patient and for applying a distraction force to the limb of the patient (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0048-0049);
wherein the at least one horizonal strut (52+56) comprises at least one caster (caster 56A) for selectively rollably supporting the at least one horizontal strut (52+56) on a floor so that the distraction frame (5) can be selectively moved to the surgical table (50) by the at least one caster (56A) (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0046).
Although Mitsuishi further discloses at least one wheel (caster 70A) for the selectively supporting the surgical table (50) above the floor (Fig. 1; ¶ 0056), Mitsuishi fails to teach that the table mount comprises at least one wheel for selectively supporting the table mount above the floor.
Shandas discloses a distraction frame (distraction system 1) comprising a table mount (base 4 / base platform 40) for removably mounting the distraction frame (1) to a surgical table (surgical table 2), at least one horizontal strut (beams 3 having horizontal sections and extending in a generally horizontal direction) mounted to the table mount (4/40), at least one vertical strut (stanchions 8) mounted to the at least one horizontal strut (3), and at least one distractor (mount 12 and any attached boot, foot support, or other distal patient restraint) mounted to the at least one vertical strut (8), wherein the at least one distractor (12) is configured for connection to a limb of a patient and for applying a distraction force to the limb of the patient, wherein the table mount (4/40) comprises at least one wheel (casters 45) for selectively supporting the table mount (4/40) above a floor and the at least one vertical strut (8) comprises at least one caster (casters 9) for selectively rollably supporting the at least one vertical strut (8) on the floor so that the distraction frame can be selectively moved to the surgical table (2) supported by the at least one wheel (45) and the at least one caster (9) (Figs. 1 & 12; ¶ 0042, 0046-0049, & 0062-0063);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the distraction frame taught by Mitsuishi such that the table mount comprises at least one wheel for selectively supporting the table mount above the floor as taught by Shandas for the purpose of supporting and adjusting the table mount relative to, or in conjunction with, the surgical table.
Although Mitsuishi further discloses a stopper (70B) for stopping and fixing the surgical table (50) with the at least one wheel (70A) in a desired position (Fig. 1; ¶ 0056), the combination of Mitsuishi and Shandas fails to teach that the at least one wheel is configured to retract into a portion of table mount so that a surface of the table mount seats on the floor when the distraction frame is mounted to the surgical table, wherein the table mount comprises one or more levers configured to translate the at least one wheel between the portion of the table mount and the floor for selectively moving the distraction frame.
Ferreri discloses a retractable wheel base for use with a surgical table and comprising table mount (base plate 21 with rear leveling feet 19 extending therefrom) and at least one wheel (caster wheels 17) for selectively supporting the table mount (21+19) above a floor, wherein the at least one wheel (17) is configured to retract into a portion of the table mount (21) so that a surface of the table mount (21+19) seats on the floor, wherein the table mount (21) comprises one or more levers (pedal 12) configured to translate the at least one wheel (17) between the portion of the table mount (21) and the floor for selectively moving the surgical table (Figs. 4-7; ¶ 0019-0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi and Shandas such that the at least one wheel is configured to retract into a portion of the table mount so that a surface of the table mount seats on the floor, wherein the table mount comprises one or more levers configured to translate the at least one wheel between the portion of the table mount and the floor for selectively moving the distraction frame as taught by Ferreri for the purpose of easily engaging the at least one wheel to a weight bearing position for allow for movement of the table mount or disengaging the at least one wheel to a retracted position to prevent the table mount from moving inadvertently while in a stationary position.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 6, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Mitsuishi further discloses that the at least one horizontal strut (52+56) comprises at least one foot peg (stopper 56B) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0046) and Shandas further discloses a leveling foot assembly (100) for a distraction system (90) including at least one caster (caster 120) and at least one foot peg (leveling foot 122) for selectively supporting the at least one caster above a floor (by actuation of jack screw 125 via adjuster knob 124), wherein the at least one foot peg (122) has an adjustable length, and wherein the at least one foot peg (122) is retractable into apportion of at least one horizontal strut (arm tube 96) such that the at least one foot peg (122) is selectively engaged with the floor (Fig. 31; ¶ 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri such that the at least one foot peg is configured for selectively supporting the at least one caster above a floor, has an adjustable length, and is retractable into apportion of the at least one horizontal strut as further taught by Shandas for the purpose of stabilizing the horizontal strut by selectively and adjustably preventing contact of the at least one caster with the floor.
Regarding claim 4, the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri is configured to be selectively fixed adjacent to the surgical table supported by the surface of the table mount and the at least one foot peg.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Mitsuishi further discloses that the at least one horizontal strut (52+56) is pivotally mounted to the table mount (53) (about supporting pin 53A) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Mitsuishi further discloses that a length of the at least one horizontal strut (52+56) is telescopically adjustable (between first arm 52A and second arm 52D) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0083).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Mitsuishi further discloses that the at least one vertical strut (75+76+77) is movably mounted to the at least one horizontal strut (52+56) (via ball screw shaft 79) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0067-0068).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Mitsuishi further discloses that the at least one vertical strut (75+76+77) is telescopically adjustable (between block 75A and track rail 76A) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0063-0065).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Mitsuishi further discloses that the at least one distractor (58) is hingeably mounted to an upper portion of the at least one vertical strut (75+76+77) (via universal joint 72) (Fig. 3; ¶ 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and Shandas further discloses that the at least one distractor (12) comprises at least one surgical booth configured to receive the limb of the patient (¶ 0003 & 0048-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the at least one distractor of the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri to comprise at least one surgical booth configured to receive the limb of the patient as further taught by Shandas for the purpose of using a well-known distal patient restraint for applying force to a patient’s leg.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuishi, in view of Shandas, in further view of Ferreri as applied to claims 1, 3, and 6 above, and in even further view of Jackson (US 2013/0111666).
The combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the at least one horizontal strut comprises a pedal configured to translate the at least one foot peg between the portion of the at least one horizontal strut and the floor.
Jackson discloses at least one horizontal strut (base 23), at least one caster (wheels 69), and at least one foot peg and a pedal (floor-lock foot lever) configured to translate the at least one foot peg between a portion of the at least one horizontal strut (23) and the floor (Fig. 5; ¶ 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri to include a pedal configured to translate the at least one foot peg between the portion of the at least one horizontal strut and the floor as taught by Jackson for the purpose of enabling a user to adjust the at least one foot peg from a standing position.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuishi, in view of Shandas, in further view of Ferreri as applied to claim 1 above, and in even further view of Moriarty et al. (US 2016/0120726).
The combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the at least one horizontal strut comprises a gas cylinder to counterbalance at least a portion of the weight of the at least one horizontal strut and/or at least a portion of the weight carried by the at least one horizontal strut.
Moriarty discloses a horizontal strut (support arm 100) comprising a gas cylinder (telescoping strut 122) to counterbalance at least a portion of a weight of the horizontal strut (100) and/or at least a portion of the weight carried by the horizontal strut (100) (Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0057-0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the at least one horizontal strut of the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri to comprise a gas cylinder to counterbalance at least a portion of the weight of the at least one horizontal strut and/or at least a portion of the weight carried by the at least one horizontal strut as taught by Moriarty for the purpose of counteracting a weight of the distraction frame and a patient’s leg and foot retained by the distraction frame thereby assisting a caregiver in reposition the leg and foot of the patient.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuishi, in view of Shandas, in further view of Ferreri as applied to claim 1 above, and in even further view of Sharps (US 2011/0083273).
The combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but fails to teach that the at least one vertical strut comprises a gas cylinder to counterbalance at least a portion of the weight of the at least one vertical strut and/or at least a portion of the weight carried by the at least one vertical strut.
Sharps discloses a vertical strut (column 102) comprising a gas cylinder (gas-shock absorber 310) to counterbalance at least a portion of a weight of the vertical strut (102) and/or at least a portion of the weight carried by the vertical strut (102) (Figs. 1 & 3; ¶ 0076, 0087).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the at least one vertical strut of the distraction frame taught by the combination of Mitsuishi / Shandas / Ferreri to comprise a gas cylinder to counterbalance at least a portion of the weight of the at least one vertical strut and/or at least a portion of the weight carried by the at least one vertical strut as taught by Sharps for the purpose of counter-acting and supporting large weights of the distraction frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-21 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 base claim 1 and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 would be allowable because none of the cited reference discloses a table mount comprising a second portion that extends along a side of a base of the surgical table when the table mount is mounted to the surgical table, wherein the second portion is configured to transfer directly to a floor a force moment imposed on the table mount when the at least one distractor applied the distraction force to the limb of the patient in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Claims 19-21 would allowable based on their dependence from allowable claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keri J. Nelson whose telephone number is 571-270-3821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael E. Bredefeld, can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/KERI J NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 2/20/2026