DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 19/479,005 filed October 27, 2025, which is a national stage entry of PCT/US2024/029275 filed May 14, 2024, which claims priority from provisional application 63/466,463 filed May 15, 2023. Claims 1-20, as presented in the preliminary amendments filed October 27, 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 § 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.
Claims 11 and 18 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the second user input device” and “the command bus”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Although claims 9 previously recites “a second user input device” and claim 8 previously recites “a command bus”, claim 11 only depends from claim 10 which does not depend from claims 8 or 9. For examination purposes, the limitations “the second user input device” and “the command bus” as recited in claim 11 have been interpreted as “a second user input device” and “a command bus”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the first user interface”; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, the limitation “the first user interface” has been interpreted as “the first user input device” as previously recited in claim 17.
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 1-4, 3-11, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel (US 2020/0188206) in view of Desai (US 2022/0039889).
Regarding claim 1, Hempel discloses a surgical table (medical apparatus 1) for supporting a patient during a medical procedure (Fig 1; ¶ 0042), comprising:
a main support (first component 2 including column 2’ and a carriage 2”) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0042);
a seat section (seat section as second component 4’) for supporting a lower torso and pelvis of the patient, the seat section (4’) connected to the main support (2) (Fig 1; ¶ 0044);
a back section (second component 4” including back section as the element 5) for supporting an upper torso of the patient, the back section (4”) connected to the seat section (4’), wherein the back section (4”) is movable relative to the seat section (4’) (via driving device 6”) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0044);
at least one electrically-operated actuator (driving devices 6, 6’, 6”) coupled to the seat section (4’) and the back section (4”), the at least one electrically-operated actuator (6, 6’, 6”) operative to cause relative movement between the seat section (4’) and the back section (4”) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0044); and
a primary controller (controller 8) communicatively coupled to the at least one electrically-operated actuator (6”) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0046).
However, Hempel fails to teach a secondary controller communicatively coupled to the at least one electrically-operated actuator, wherein when the primary controller is in a first state the primary controller is configured to control the at least one electrically-operated actuator and the secondary controller is configured to monitor the primary controller, and when the primary controller is in a second state the secondary controller is configured to control the at least one electrically-operated actuator.
Desai discloses a surgical robot system (100) (in the related art of surgical robotic arms 122 mounted to a surgical platform 124) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0022) comprising at least one electrically-operated actuator (robotic arm 622), a primary controller (primary robotic arm controller 631) communicatively coupled to the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622), and a secondary controller (secondary robotic arm controller 400 in table adapter controller 700) communicatively coupled to the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622), wherein when the primary controller (631) is in a first state the primary controller (631) is configured to control the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) and the secondary controller (400) is configured to monitor the primary controller (631) (via heartbeat messages, processor supervisor 440, and stand-alone mediator 463), and when the primary controller (631) is in a second state the secondary controller (400) is configured to control the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) (¶ 0042 & 0046-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the surgical table taught by Hempel to include a secondary controller that monitors the primary controller as taught by Desai for the purpose of being able to detect when there is a failure or malfunction of the primary controller such that the secondary controller is able to take over thereby improving safety and preventing hazardous situations for the patient by ensuring that there is control of the at least one electrically-operated actuator.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 1, and Hempel further discloses a leg section (leg section as second component 4) for supporting legs of the patient, the leg section (4) connected to the seat section (4’), wherein the leg section (4) is movable relative to the seat section (4’) (via driving device 6’) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 2, and Hempel further discloses that the at least one electrically-operated actuator (6, 6’, 6”) comprises a plurality of electrically-operated actuators (driving devices 6, 6’, 6”), wherein at least one (driving device 6’) of the plurality of electrically-operated actuators (6, 6’, 6”) is coupled to the seat section (4’) and the leg section (4), the at least one (6’) of the plurality of electrically-operated actuators (6, 6’, 6”) communicatively coupled to the primary controller (8) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0044).
Desai further discloses that the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) is communicatively coupled to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400), wherein the primary controller (631) is configured to control the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) when in the first state and the secondary controller (400) is configured to control the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) when the primary controller (631) is in the second state (¶ 0046-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the surgical table taught by the combination of Hempel and Desai such that the at least one of the plurality of electrically-operated actuators is also coupled to the second controller as further taught by Desai for the purpose of being able to detect when there is a failure or malfunction of the primary controller with respect to each of the plurality of electrically-operated actuators such that the secondary controller is able to take over thereby improving safety and preventing hazardous situations for the patient by ensuring that there is control of the each of the plurality of electrically-operated actuators.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 1, and Desai further discloses that the secondary controller (400) is configured to monitor the primary controller (631) to determine if the primary controller (631) is in the first state or the second state, and upon the secondary controller (400) determining the primary controller (631) is in the second state the secondary controller (400) is configured to take over control of the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) (¶ 0048-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the surgical table taught by the combination of Hempel and Desai such that the secondary controller is configured to monitor the primary controller enabling the second controller to effectively backup the primary controller when determined necessary.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 1, wherein the at least one electrically-operated actuator (6, 6’, 6”) taught by Hempel will implicitly comprise an electric motor as it is well known that surgical tables include motor-driven components to drive the positions thereof (¶ 0003). Further, Desai clearly discloses that the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) comprises an electric motor and a motor controller operatively coupled to the electric motor (robotic arm 622 includes a plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes can include various motors and a motor controller/driver) (¶ 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the at least one electrically-operated actuator of the surgical table taught by the combination of Hempel and Desai to comprise an electric motor and a motor controller operatively coupled to the electric motor as further taught by Desai for the purpose of effectively actuating one section of the surgical table with respect to another section.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 1, and Desai further discloses a first user input device (user console 110 including user input device 612) communicatively coupled to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400), the first user input device (110) configured to receive inputs from a user and communicate the received inputs to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400), and a command bus (RingNet interface 638), wherein the first user input device (110) in communicatively coupled to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400) via the command bus (638) (¶ 0036 & 0045).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 1, and Desai further discloses a second user input device (user input device 420) communicatively coupled to the secondary controller (400), the second user input device (420) configured to receive inputs from a user and communicate the received inputs to the secondary controller (400) (¶ 0046).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 1, and Desai further discloses a third user input device (user input device 420) communicatively coupled to the secondary controller (400), the third user input device (420) configured to receive inputs from a user and communicate the received inputs to the secondary controller (400), wherein the secondary controller (400) is configured to communicate commands received from a second user input device (user console 110 including user input device 612) and the third user input device (420) to the primary controller (631) via a command bus (RingNet interface 638) (¶ 0036 & 0045-0046).
With respect to the limitations “a second user input device” and “a third user input device”, it is noted that the terms “second” and “third” are in name only and do not require a “first” user input device and claims 10 and 11 do not depend from claim 7 which recites “a first user input device”. Therefore, the “second” user input device as recited in claim 11 has been interpreted as analogous to the “first” user input device recited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Hempel discloses a method for controlling a surgical table (medical apparatus 1) configured to support a patient during a medical procedure (Fig 1; ¶ 0042), the surgical table (1) including a main support (first component 2 including column 2’ and a carriage 2”) a seat section (seat section as second component 4’) for supporting a lower torso and pelvis of the patient, the seat section (4’) connected to the main support (2), and a back section (second component 4” including back section as the element 5) for supporting an upper torso of the patient, the back section (4”) connected to the seat section (4’), wherein the back section (4”) is movable relative to the seat section (4’) (via driving device 6”) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0042 & 0044), the method comprising:
controlling at least one electrically-operated actuator (driving devices 6, 6’, 6”) with a primary controller (controller 8), the at least one electrically-operated actuator (6, 6’, 6”) configured to cause relative movement between the seat section (4’) and the back section (4”) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0044 & 0046).
However, Hempel fails to teach monitoring, by a secondary controller, and operational status of the primary controller and upon the secondary controller determining the primary controller is malfunctioning, the secondary controller taking over control of the at least one electrically-operated actuator from the primary controller.
Desai discloses a method for controlling a surgical robot system (100) (in the related art of surgical robotic arms 122 mounted to a surgical platform 124) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0022), the method comprising controlling at least one electrically-operated actuator (robotic arm 622) with a primary controller (primary robotic arm controller 631), monitoring, by a secondary controller (secondary robotic arm controller 400 in table adapter controller 700), an operational status of the primary controller (631), and upon the secondary controller (400) determining the primary controller (631) is malfunctioning, the secondary controller (400) taking over control of the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) from the primary controller (631) (¶ 0042 & 0046-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method taught by Hempel to include monitoring the primary controller by a secondary controller which will take over control of the at least actuator from the primary controller upon determining that the primary controller is malfunctioning as taught by Desai for the purpose of being able to detect when there is a failure or malfunction of the primary controller such that the secondary controller is able to take over thereby improving safety and preventing hazardous situations for the patient by ensuring that there is control of the at least one electrically-operated actuator.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the method substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 13, and Desai further discloses that monitoring by the secondary controller (400) comprises the secondary controller (400) querying the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400) taking over control of the at least one actuator (622) upon the primary controller (631) failing to respond to the query (¶ 0046-0049).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the method substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 13, and Desai further discloses a first user input device (user console 110 including user input device 612) communicatively coupled to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400) via a command bus (RingNet interface 638), wherein the secondary controller (400) monitors a status of the command bus (638) and takes control from the primary controller (631) of the at least one electrically-operated actuator (622) upon the command bus (638) being in a malfunctioning state (failure in the communication of messages) (¶ 0036 & 0045).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the method substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claim 13, and Desai further discloses a first user input device (user console 110 including user input device 612) communicatively coupled to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400) to receive inputs from a user and communicate the received inputs to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400) (¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the method substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claims 13 and 17, and Desai further discloses using the first user input device including communicating to the primary and secondary controllers (631, 400) over a command bus (RingNet interface 638) communicatively coupled to the primary controller (631) and the secondary controller (400) via the command bus (638) (¶ 0036 & 0045).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Hempel and Desai discloses the method substantially as claimed, as described above with respect to claims 13 and 17, and Desai further discloses using a second user input device (user input device 420) to receive inputs from the user and communicate the received inputs to the secondary controller (400) (¶ 0046).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 1 and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claim 13, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 13 and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected claims 13, 17, and 19, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of base claim 13 and intervening claims 17 and 19.
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 8/28/2026
