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 Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered, however, they are not deemed to be persuasive based on the new Wan reference (Does the graft-tunnel friction influence knee joint kinematics and biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A finite element study). Specifically Wan teaches the claimed “suggesting, by the surgical system, based at least on the kinematic information and the three-dimensional model, at least an initial path of at least one patient-specific graft tunnel through the knee joint” (Wan, Figure 1 - The FE model of human knee joint with ACL reconstructed by a 4-stranded HT graft. (a) The bone tunnels are in sectional view for showing the graft clearly. The cortical and cancellous bones are shown as dark and light gray, respectively. (b) Three cross section sites were selected for each tunnel to analyze the simulated results around the bone tunnels; page 3, 1st column - The aim of this paper was to determine whether the graft-tunnel friction affected the ACL reconstruction using a previously developed finite element (FE) model of human tibiofemoral joint. Four different graft-tunnel friction coefficients were analyzed under two anterior tibial drawer loads. The simulated results of joint kinematics, strain distribution of graft, relative motion on the graft-tunnel interface, and equivalent strain distribution of bone tunnels were compared for analyzing the effects of graft-tunnel friction on joint stability, graft remodeling, graft-tunnel integration, and bone adaption, respectively). Accordingly, the claimed invention as represented does not represent a patentable distinction over the art of record.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 13-16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over
COLUMBET et al (2006/0161052) in view of JARAMAZ et al (2016/0338776).
As per claim 1, Columbet teaches the claimed "method of planning a surgical
tunnel during a surgical procedure," the method comprising: "receiving, by a surgical
system, kinematic information related to a range of motion of a knee joint" (Columbet,
[0070] - The position and orientation of femur 2 can be determined based upon the position and orientation of markers 102 attached thereto. Markers 102, 112 are sufficient to establish the position and orientation of the rigid bodies 100. 110 within the
coordinate system 40); "registering, by the surgical system, one or more surfaces of a
bony anatomy of the knee joint" (Columbet, [0071] - to allow a practitioner to digitize
landmarks of the femur 2 and tibia 4. Digitizing a landmark comprises determining the
position of the landmark in the three-dimensional coordinate system); "generating, by
the surgical system a three-dimensional model of the knee joint" (Columbet, [0072] -
landmark points and or directions are digitized with respect to the femur 2 and tibia 4
with the pointer and are stored in the computer. Preferably an anatomical coordinate
system for the femur and the tibia is defined based on at least a portion of the acquired
data; [0112] - The CAOS system 10 is configured for performing ligament reconstruction surgeries, such as kneе ligament reconstruction surgery ... to assist the physician in locating and selecting the proper locations for the tunnels that are formed in the tibia 4 and the femur 2 that terminate at the desired fixation points on each bone surface; [0117] - a series of postoperative tests are conducted in order to test the patient's response to the surgery and to test the stability of the knee post-surgery (post ligament reconstruction). In particular, the same laxity tests are conducted again in the same manner described earlier in reference to the pre-operative stage and the associated quantitative values for these laxity tests are displayed; [0122]- As with the previously described ACL reconstruction, the physician, in real time, simply moves the pointer along the femoral surface and digitizes different points to evaluate the corresponding anisometry data for these points and a comparison of all these acquired points (prospective femoral insertion points) is conducted to determine which insertion point yields the best results in terms of anisometry values). The Columbet teaches that there are several parameters of the graft tunnel which are determined by the system software (e.g., [0113] — FIG. 16 shows a tibial insertion point being digitized by use of the pointer 120 and more particularly, at this point in time the system is set in a mode to determine the tunnel location and characteristics, the pointer 120 is placed on the tibial surface to select an insertion point for the tunnel... In addition, the present invention contains a feature not found in other conventional systems in that the user interface and software is programmed to calculate the depth of the tunnel and provide the physician with this value on the display screen; [0115] - As with the tibial tunnel, data is provided to the physician that corresponds to the depth of the tunnel and the location of the tunnel as well as the peripheral shape of the exit port); furthermore, the graft tunnels' parameters are evaluated based on the kinematic information and the three-dimensional model by the Columbet's system software (e.g., [0117] - a series of post-operative tests are conducted in order to test the patient's response to the surgery and to test the stability of the knee post-surgery (post ligament reconstruction). In particular, the same laxity tests are conducted again in the same manner described earlier in reference to the pre- operative stage and the associated quantitative values for these laxity tests are displayed).
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered, however, they are not deemed to be persuasive based on the new Wan reference (Does the graft-tunnel friction influence knee joint kinematics and biomechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A finite element study). Specifically Wan teaches the claimed “suggesting, by the surgical system, based at least on the kinematic information and the three-dimensional model, at least an initial path of at least one patient-specific graft tunnel through the knee joint” (Wan, Figure 1 - The FE model of human knee joint with ACL reconstructed by a 4-stranded HT graft. (a) The bone tunnels are in sectional view for showing the graft clearly. The cortical and cancellous bones are shown as dark and light gray, respectively. (b) Three cross section sites were selected for each tunnel to analyze the simulated results around the bone tunnels; page 3, 1st column - The aim of this paper was to determine whether the graft-tunnel friction affected the ACL reconstruction using a previously developed finite element (FE) model of human tibiofemoral joint. Four different graft-tunnel friction coefficients were analyzed under two anterior tibial drawer loads. The simulated results of joint kinematics, strain distribution of graft, relative motion on the graft-tunnel interface, and equivalent strain distribution of bone tunnels were compared for analyzing the effects of graft-tunnel friction on joint stability, graft remodeling, graft-tunnel integration, and bone adaption, respectively). Accordingly, the claimed invention as represented does not represent a patentable distinction over the art of record.
It is noted that Columbet does not teach "the probe being in contact with the bony
anatomy" as claimed. However, the reference of Jaramaz teaches the position tracking
of the point probe by "being in contact with the bone anatomy" (Jaramaz, [0041],
[0047], [0057]-[0061] - In an example, a surgeon uses the point probe to map, in 3-
dimensions, the actual surface of the target bone that needs a new implant... As
discussed in more detail below, the virtual model of the implant host (joint to be revised)
can be created through use of a point probe or similar instrument tracked by the optical
tracking system 140. The control system 210, in some examples the planning module
212, collects data from surfaces of the target joint to recreate a virtual model of the
patient's actual anatomical structure... The location of a point probe, which is used for
collecting coordinate points on bone and implant surfaces, is verified as to the location
of the tip in relation to the trackers. Checkpoints are established in the system on the
femur and tibia bones, including malleoli, as pre-established stationary reference points
touched with the tip of the point probe. At various points during the overall procedure,
these points will be touched with the point probe again to ensure accuracy within the
tracking system as a whole; Figure 6, [0076] - The physical world diagram 600
illustrates an example of surface mapping of the target bone with surgical instrument
150, which includes tracking array 155).
It is noted that the Jaramaz reference teaches the generated "patient-specific" model in which the surfaces of the bony anatomy of the knee joint is registered during the surgical procedure (Jaramaz, [0057]-[0061] – The virtual 3D model is aligned with the actual bone structures via the tracking data, such as tracking arrays 120 and point probe tracking (surgical instrument 150) via tracking array 155. Subsequently, during the collection of surface data at step 330, the volumetric virtual 3D model is reshaped to conform with the actual surface of the target bone. This process of iteratively reshaping a 3D model generated from landmarks and other patient specific information results in a very accurate 3D model of the actual target bone that can be used throughout the planning process).
It would have been obvious, in view of Jaramaz and Wan, to configure Columbet's method as claimed by suggesting, by the surgical system, based at least on the kinematic information and the three-dimensional model, at least an initial path of at least one patient-specific graft tunnel through the knee joint and let "the point probe being in contact with the bony anatomy" to track the points on the surfaces of the bony anatomy of the knee joint during the surgical procedure. The motivation is accurately building a virtual model of the physical bone anatomy and providing a proposed patient-specific graft tunnel through the knee joint.
Claim 2 adds into claim 1 "wherein receiving kinematic information related to a
range of motion of a knee joint comprises: affixing one or more tracking arrays to one or
more bones of the patient; flexing and extending the knee joint through a range of
motion; and recording, by a tracking system, a plurality of positions of the knee joint
through the range of motion" (Columbet, [0071] - to allow a practitioner to digitize
landmarks of the femur 2 and tibia 4. Digitizing a landmark comprises determining the
position of the landmark in the three-dimensional coordinate system; Columbet, [0072]
landmark points and or directions are digitized with respect to the femur 2 and tibia 4
with the pointer and are stored in the computer. Preferably an anatomical coordinate
system for the femur and the tibia is defined based on at least a portion of the acquired
data).
Claim 3 adds into claims 1 "wherein the range of motion of the knee joint
comprises at least one of a passive range of motion and a stressed range of motion"
which would have been obvious because Columbet's tracking the motions of the femur
2 and tibia 4 (Columbet, Abstract, [0071]-[0072] - а computer that is configured to
determine and track intraoperative positions of the reference bodies and the pointer and
to provide isometric and impingement data for a ligament graft placement based on a
realistic simulation of a trajectory of a deformable ligament graft) suggests the captured
motions of knee joint in which the captured motions of a knee joint inherently includes a
passive range of motion and a stressed range of motion. The motivation to include the
passive range and/or the stress range on the captured motion of the knee is to generate
a realistic motion of the patient's knee.
Claim 13 adds into claims 1 "wherein displaying, by the surgical system, the
surgical plan on a display screen; and receiving, from a user, one or more alterations to
the one or more patient-specific graft tunnel parameters" (Columbet, Figure 3.
Navigation screens: (a) lateral view with isometric map of extra-articular tenodesis and
(b) intra-articular navigation windows with isometric map on the lateral part of the
intercondylar notch. A virtual graft (solid line) is provided by the computer as well as
different parameters and a graphic of graft length difference during flexion/extension).
As per claim 14, Columbet teaches the claimed "graft tunnel planning system for
use during a surgical procedure," the system comprising: "a plurality of tracking markers
configured to be affixed to one or more bones of a patient" (Columbet, [0070] — The
position and orientation of femur 2 can be determined based upon the position and
orientation of markers 102 attached thereto. Markers 102, 112 are sufficient to establish
the position and orientation of the rigid bodies 100. 110 within the coordinate system
40); "a tracking unit configured to capture location data of the plurality of tracking
markers at discrete intervals through a range of motion of a knee joint of the patient"
(Columbet, [0071] - to allow a practitioner to digitize landmarks of the femur 2 and
tibia1_. Digitizing a landmark comprises determining the position of the landmark in the
three-dimensional coordinate system); "a point probe configured to capture geometry
data of a bony surface of the patient" (Columbet, [0072] - landmark points and or directions are digitized with respect to the femur 2 and tibia 4 with the pointer and are
stored in the computer. Preferably an anatomical coordinate system for the femur and
the tibia is defined based on at least a portion of the acquired data); and "a computing
module configured to: receive the location data from the tracking unit; receive the
geometry data from the point probe; and determine a surgical plan based on the
location data and the geometry data, wherein the surgical plan comprises one or more
patient-specific graft tunnel parameters" ( Columbet, [0112] - The CAOS system 10 is
configured for performing ligament reconstruction surgeries, such as knee ligament
reconstruction surgery ... to assist the physician in locating and selecting the proper
locations for the tunnels that are formed in the tibia 4 and the femur 2 that terminate at
the desired fixation points on each bone surface).
Claim 15 adds into claim 14 "wherein the computing module is further configured
to calculate the range of motion of the knee joint based on the location data"
( Columbet, [0071 J - to allow a practitioner to digitize landmarks of the femur 2 and tibia
1_. Digitizing a landmark comprises determining the position of the landmark in the
three-dimensional coordinate system; Columbet, [0072] - landmark points and or
directions are digitized with respect to the femur 2 and tibia 4 with the pointer and are
stored in the computer. Preferably an anatomical coordinate system for the femur and
the tibia is defined based on at least a portion of the acquired data).
Claim 16 adds into claims 14 or 15 "wherein the range of motion of the knee joint
comprises at least one of a passive range of motion and a stressed range of motion"
which would have been obvious because Columbet's tracking the motions of the femur
2 and tibia 4 ( Columbet, Abstract, [0071]-[0072] - a computer that is configured to
determine and track intraoperative positions of the reference bodies and the pointer and
to provide isometric and impingement data for a ligament graft placement based on a
realistic simulation of a trajectory of a deformable ligament graft) suggests the captured
motions of knee joint in which the captured motions of a knee joint inherently includes a
passive range of motion and a stressed range of motion. The motivation to include the
passive range and/or the stress range on the captured motion of the knee is to generate
a realistic motion of the patient's knee.
The claim 22 adds into claim 14 "wherein the point probe is an optically
tracked point probe" (Jaramaz, [0047] - the virtual model of the implant host (joint to be
revised) can be created through use of a point probe or similar instrument tracked by
the optical tracking system 140). It would have been obvious, in view of Jaramaz, to
configure Columbet's method as claimed with "the point probe is an optically tracked
point probe" to track the points on the surfaces of the bony anatomy of the knee joint
during the surgical procedure. The motivation is accurately building a virtual model of
the physical bone anatomy.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
COLUMBET et al (2006/0161052) in view of JARAMAZ et al (2016/0338776) as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of BARRATT et al (Self-Calibrating 3D-UltrasoundBased Bone Registration for Minimally Invasive Orthopedic Surgery).
Claim 21 claims a device based on the method of claim 1, and adds "causing the
one or more processors to receive, from a tracking system, kinematic information
related to a range of motion of the knee joint collected during the surgical procedure;
receive geometry data associated with one or more surfaces of a bony anatomy of the
knee joint collected with a probe during the surgical procedure" which Colum bet does
not explicitly teach. However, Columbet's digitized shape of the involved bones (e.g.,
[0087] - the model is built from a population of a number of specimen (points), such as
femur or tibia points, that are digitized) suggests the sampling process using a probe to
collect data of the bone's surface) (see also Barratt, Abstract, Figure 1 - an US probe
is tracked by a 3-0 position sensor and acts as a percutaneous device for localizing the
bone surface; C. Gold Standard Registration - The Gold Standard ORO-to-CT
registration transformations were computed for each bone by registering together
corresponding fiducial pointsets; Jaramaz, [0057]-[0061] - The virtual 30 model is
aligned with the actual bone structures via the tracking data, such as tracking arrays
120 and point probe tracking (surgical instrument 150) via tracking array 155.
Subsequently, during the collection of surface data at step 330, the volumetric virtual 30
model is reshaped to conform with the actual surface of the target bone. This process of
iteratively reshaping a 30 model generated from landmarks and other patient specific
information results in a very accurate 30 model of the actual target bone that can be
used throughout the planning process). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of
Barratt and Jaramaz, to configure Columbet's method as claimed by using the probe to
sample the points on the bone's surface and to register the digitized points as the anatomy of the bone. The motivation is to build a model of the bone used in computer
system (Barratt, figure 1).
Claims 5-10, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
COLUMBET et al (2006/0161052) in view of JARAMAZ et al (2016/0338776) as applied
to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of DHAHER et al (Anterior laxity, graft tunnel interaction and surgical design variations during anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction: A probabilistic simulation of the surgery).
Claim 5 adds into claim 1 "wherein determining a surgical plan comprises:
estimating one or more properties of a ligament graft; performing a dynamic simulation
of the knee joint based on the one or more properties of the ligament graft; and
optimizing the one or more patient-specific graft tunnel parameters based on the
dynamic simulation to minimize one or more of the amount of a strain on the ligament
graft, an amount of contact or stress on an entrance of the graft tunnel, an impingement
of the ligament graft, and an anisometry of the tunnel' which Columbet does not
explicitly teach. However, Columbet's tibia's and femur's tunnels (e.g., [0073] - The user
interface 200 is configured to assist and walk the physician through the ligament
reconstruction procedure to obtain optimal results and to assist the physician in
determining what the best course of action is in terms of providing and optimizing the
stability of the knee; [0111]-[0115] - The present system 10 is thus a real time system
that looks and takes into account the anatomy of the patient when assessing and
determining the optimal fixation points for the ligament) suggests the optimization of
graft tunnel parameters (see also Dhaher, 4. Discussion - Our simulations indicated
that the "optimal" design might largely depend on the outcome. For example, none of
the models with a joint laxity comparable to the laxity of the intact joint exhibited graft tunnel contact properties comparable to those of the "laxity-preferred" anatomic surgical
design. .. Different parameters influence the final functional result following AGL
reconstruction, including the intraoperative joint's anterior/posterior laxity). Thus, it
would have been obvious, in view of Dhaher, to configure Columbet's method as
claimed by using simulation of the knee joint based on the one or more properties of the
ligament graft to optimize the parameters of patient-specific graft tunnel. The motivation
is to help the physician in performing the surgery ( Columbet, [0124] - The physician
can select various femoral points until the optimal anisometry fit is achieved and as
soon as this occurs, the physician is ready to drill the tunnel or hole to accommodate
the LCL).
Claim 6 adds into claim 5 "determining a target tension for the ligament graft
based on the dynamic simulation to produce a desired knee laxity" ( Columbet, [0080],
Figure 4-- a complete slow and fluid flexion-extension movement to assist the
physician in determining the anatomy of the patient; Dhaher, 4. Discussion - the wide
range of initial pretension values in this study (20-120 N) includes possible graft
tensions at different time intervals post-operatively and hence findings gleaned from the
current sensitivity analysis may be generalizable to post-surgical states). Thus, it would
have been obvious, in view of Dhaher, to configure Columbet's method as claimed by
determining a target tension for the ligament graft based on the dynamic simulation to
produce a desired knee laxity. The motivation is to help the physician in performing the
surgery ( Columbet, [0124] - The physician can select various femoral points until the
optimal anisometry fit is achieved and as soon as this occurs, the physician is ready to
drill the tunnel or hole to accommodate the LCL).
Claim 7 adds into claim 5 "wherein the one or more properties of the ligament
graft comprise one or more of a cross-sectional area, a cross-sectional geometry, elasticity, a length, and a number of bundles of the ligament graft" ( Columbet, [0010] -
the course of these ligament bundles is often guided by the curved protruding surfaces
on the ends of the femur and on the tibia in the vicinity of the ligament attachment sites;
[0102] -As is known in the relevant art, isometry involves a measurement of length
change between selected replacement ligament (e.g., cruciate ligament) insertion site
with a passive range of motion).
Claim 8 adds into claim 1 "wherein forming one or more tunnel segments based
on the surgical plan; fixing a ligament graft through the one or more tunnel segments;
and performing one or more stability assessment tests upon the knee joint" ( Columbet,
[0027] - the present invention can provide a system for displaying in real time the
position and orientation of a surgical drilling tool in relation to the targeted graft tunnel
position and orientation, [0112] - the present invention is configured to assist the
physician in locating and selecting the proper locations for the tunnels that are formed in
the tibia 4 and the femur 2 that terminate at the desired fixation points on each bone
surface; Figures 9-11- Perform the Drawer test, a media-lateral stability test, a
Lachman test).
Claim 9 adds into claim 8 "wherein the one or more stability assessment tests
comprise one or more of a Drawer test, a Lachman test, and a Pivot Shift test" which is
well-known in the art to measure translation and different rotations during the clinical
tests on patients in the operating room before and after the reconstruction, giving
immediate feedback of the mechanical effect of different techniques of ACL
reconstruction. In a common practice, the navigation of an anatomic anteromedial
bundle revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was used to optimize femoral
and tibial tunnel positions and to measure the knee kinematics in response to the
anterior drawer test, Lachman test, maximum internal/external rotation test, and pivotshift test (e.g., see Columbet, Figures 9-11 - Perform the Drawer test, a media-lateral stability test, a Lachman test).
Claim 10 adds into claim 8 "wherein measuring a joint laxity value of the knee
joint; comparing the joint laxity value of the knee joint with a joint laxity value of a non-operated knee joint of the patient; and adjusting an actual tension of the ligament graft
based on the comparison of the joint laxity value of the knee joint with the joint laxity
value of the non-operated knee joint" (Columbet, [0075] - the region 224 lists a number
of tests that are associated with the laxity of the joint, in this case the knee; [0091] - For
example, a number of preoperative laxities tests can be formed to test for joint laxity;
[0097], [0100] - To generate a value representing the result of the pivot shift test, two
plots can be plotted and compared to one another, namely a first plot (reference or
neutral plot) that represents the laxity as a function of degree of flexion of the patient's
leg prior to performing the pivot shift and a second plot which plots the motion of the leg
after the pivot shift (dislocation) has been performed).
Claims 17-19 claim a system based on the method of claims 5-10; therefore, they
are rejected under a similar rationale.
Claims 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over COLUMBET et al (2006/0161052) in view of JARAMAZ et al (2016/0338776)as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CILLA et al (Machine learning
techniques for the optimization of joint replacements: Application to a short-stem hip
implant).
Claim 11 adds into claims 1 "wherein determining a surgical plan further
comprises: receiving, by the surgical system, past procedure data from a remote
database, wherein the past procedure data comprises graft tunnel parameters and
patient outcome information; and optimizing the one or more patient-specific graft tunnel
parameters based on the past procedure data" which Columbet does not explicitly
teach. However, Colum bet's physician prior experience (e.g., [0118] - based upon the
physician's prior experience in interpreting such data, the physician ts better guided in
making a determination whether exterior stabilization is needed, thus requiring an extraarticular ligament graft) suggests the use of past procedure to optimize the patient specific operation (see also Cilla, Machine Learning Techniques (ML Ts) - Fig 6.
Flow chart of a typical training task using ML T. During the training, the error of the
output prediction associated to the input parameters is minimized. Once the ML T is
trained, the minimization algorithm find the best combination of design parameters to
reduce the proximal stress shielding). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Cilla,
to configure Columbet's method as claimed by optimizing the current patient's surgery
procedure based on the past procedure. The motivation is using "experiences" as a help tool on surgical operation ( Cella, 1 Introduction - The benefits of introducing Machine Learning Techniques MLT into medical analysis have been proven by an increase of diagnostic accuracy, reduction of costs and human resources).
Claim 12 adds into claim 11 "wherein optimizing the one or more patient- specific
graft tunnel parameters based on the past procedure data comprises utilizing machine
learning techniques" ( Cilia, Machine Learning Techniques (ML Ts) - Fig 6. Flow
chart of a typical training task using ML T. During the training, the error of the prediction
associated to the input parameters is minimized. Once the ML T is trained, the
minimization algorithm find the best combination of design parameters to reduce the
proximal stress shielding). Thus, it would have been obvious, in view of Cilla, to
configure Columbet's method as claimed by optimizing the one or more patient- specific
graft tunnel parameters based on the past procedure data comprises utilizing machine
learning techniques. The motivation is using machine learning technique as a help tool
on surgical operation (Cella, 1 Introduction - The benefits of introducing Machine
Learning Techniques MLT into medical analysis have been proven by an increase of
diagnostic accuracy, reduction of costs and human resources).
Claim 20 claim a system based on the method of claims 11-12; therefore, it is
rejected under a similar rationale.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PHU K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7645. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Daniel F. Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/PHU K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights