DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-12 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 2/16/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “an slot” which should be “a slot” for improved grammatical effect.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one second coupling” which should be “wherein the at least one second coupling element” for improved antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,569,389. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is slightly broader yet fully encompassed and anticipated by the reference patent claim(s). Essentially the patented claim requires “a channel configured to engage an edge of the base” (claim 2), while the instant case requires “a coupler” (claim 10) performing a similar function. The term coupler is considered broader and fully encompassed by the narrower term channel.
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,569,389.
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(s) 1 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0083344 to Allen in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0335512 to Langford.
Regarding claim 1, Allen teaches: A cladding protection device for placement around a column, the cladding protection device (see Fig. 17, cladding protection device 120) comprising:
a first guard and a second guard (see Fig. 17, pair of bodies 120a/120b), wherein the first guard and the second guard are couplable to one another to bound a central area dimensioned to receive the column (see para [0061]),
the first guard including at least one first coupling element (see Fig. 17, male projection 126) and the second guard including at least one second coupling element (see Fig. 17, female recess 127), wherein the at least one first coupling element is configured to engage the at least one second coupling element to thereby couple the first guard to the second guard (see para [0062]).
Allen, however, does not teach: at least one of the first guard and the second guard including a coupler configured to receive an edge of a base from which the column extends.
Langford teaches: at least one of the first guard and the second guard including a coupler (see Fig. 3-4, attachment member 130) configured to receive an edge of a base from which the column extends (see Fig. 4, vertical member 142 engages with an edge of base from which column 110 extends).
Allen and Langford are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of surgical table shrouds or protective guards. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Allen with these aforementioned teachings of Langford in order to add an attachment/securement member as taught by Langford to the existing device of Allen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved means of attachment of the shroud to a variety of operating table sizes (see Langford, para [0019-0020]).
Regarding claim 5, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 1, however it does not teach: wherein the coupler is movable relative to an adjacent surface of the at least one of the first guard and the second guard.
Langford teaches: wherein the coupler is movable relative to an adjacent surface of the at least one of the first guard and the second guard (see Fig. 4, at least hinge 150 and/or set screws 172 would allow movement of the attachment member 130 with respect to the shield 124 or guard 120).
Regarding claim 6, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one first coupling element is an L-shaped protrusion having a tab extending from a horizontal portion of the L-shaped protrusion (see Fig. 17, as shown, male projection 126 is considered “L-shaped” and includes a tab projecting downwardly therefrom).
Regarding claim 7, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the at least one second coupling is an slot that is formed in a distal end of the second guard (see Fig. 17, female recess 127 is considered a slot).
Regarding claim 8, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein a biasing mechanism is disposed on at least one of the first guard and the second guard and is configured to biasingly engage one side of the column (see Fig. 17, stand-offs 128 would bias the guards 120a/1202 from a surgical column 30. Also shown in Fig. 4B, see also para [0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: A surgical table (see Fig. 2, surgical table 10) comprising: a patient support surface (see Fig. 2, table surface 17) and a base (see Fig. 2, base 36), a column extending between the base and the patient support surface (see Fig. 2 and 4B, column 30 disposed withing cladding device 20), and the cladding protection device of claim 1, wherein the cladding protection device is installed about the column (see Fig. 2 and 4B).
Regarding claim 10, Allen teaches: A method of assembling a cladding protection device about a column (see abstract and Fig. 2/4B), the method comprising:
placing a first guard about a portion of a perimeter of the column (see Fig. 17, first body 120a);
coupling a second guard (see Fig. 17, second body 120b) to the first guard (see Fig. 17, coupling facilitated by complimentary couplers 124, see also para [0063]);
pivoting the second guard relative to the first guard about the column to bound a remaining portion of the perimeter of the column (see Figs. 17-18 which should uncoupled and coupled views, see also para [0063]).
Allen, however does not explicitly teach: moving a coupler on at least one of the first guard and the second guard into engagement with an edge of a base from which the column extends to secure the cladding protection device to the base.
Langford teaches: moving a coupler (see Fig. 3-4, attachment member 130) on at least one of the first guard and the second guard into engagement with an edge of a base from which the column extends to secure the cladding protection device to the base (see Fig. 4, vertical member 142 engages with an edge of base from which column 110 extends, see also para [0020-21]).
Allen and Langford are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of surgical table shrouds or protective guards. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Allen with these aforementioned teachings of Langford in order to add an attachment/securement member as taught by Langford to the existing device of Allen with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved means of attachment of the shroud to a variety of operating table sizes (see Langford, para [0019-0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 10, however it does not teach: wherein the step of moving a coupler includes moving the coupler between a first position wherein the respective one of the first guard and the second guard is free to be removed from the base and a second position wherein the edge of the base is received into the coupler and the at least one of the first guard and the second guard is secured to the base.
Langford teaches: wherein the step of moving a coupler includes moving the coupler between a first position wherein the respective one of the first guard and the second guard is free to be removed from the base and a second position wherein the edge of the base is received into the coupler and the at least one of the first guard and the second guard is secured to the base (see Fig. 4, at least hinge 150 and/or set screws 172 would allow movement of the attachment member 130 with respect to the shield 124 or guard 120, see also para [0020-0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Allen as modified, teaches all the limitations described in the rejection of claim 10, and additionally teaches: wherein the step of pivoting the second guard relative to the first guard includes pivoting the second guard about a pivot axis defined by a coupling element of the first guard and a mating coupling element of the second guard (see Fig. 15-16, wherein one coupling element is shown coupled while the other remains open. As applied to the embodiment in Fig. 17, one would couple one side via 124 and pivot the guards 120a/102b with respect to another along a pivot axis along the connected 124, see also para [0063]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the closest prior art of record (Allen and Langford) does not teach or fairly disclose a coupler comprising a U-shaped channel that extends from a body portion of the coupler, the U-shaped channel being configured to receive the edge of the base. Langford’s attachment member 130 is never shown to be U-shaped or comprise a channel configured to receive and edge of the base. Langford’s attachment is planar and secured via force/friction and thereby differs from the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show surgical column protection devices with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
9/9/2026
