DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 07/10/2024.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 have been amended.
Claims 11-16 have been newly added.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/10/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-16 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claims 1-3 are the system claims.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An implantable medical device, comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal; and
a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor and configured to:
activate the at least one sensor a specified first plurality of times over a first time period, wherein the specified first plurality of times over the first time period corresponds to a frequency that qualifies for payment under a reimbursement code;
detect a qualified event based on samples of the sensor signal generated by the at least one sensor; and
responsive to a detection of a qualified event, store the samples of the sensor signal in a memory.
Specifically, independent claim 2 recites:
An implantable medical device, comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal; and
a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor and configured to:
activate the at least one sensor a specified first plurality of times over a first time period, wherein the specified first plurality of times over the first time period corresponds to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for payment under a telemedicine insurance code;
detect a qualified event based on samples of the sensor signal generated by the at least one sensor; and
responsive to a detection of a qualified event, store the samples of the sensor signal in a memory.
Specifically, independent claim 3 recites:
An implantable medical device, comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal; and
a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor and configured to:
activate the at least one sensor a specified first plurality of times over a first time period, wherein the specified first plurality of times over the first time period corresponds to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for full payment under a telemedicine insurance code;
detect a qualified event based on samples of the sensor signal generated by the at least one sensor; and
responsive to a detection of a qualified event, store the samples of the sensor signal in a memory.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because qualifying for payment under a reimbursement code and qualifying for full payment under a telemedicine insurance code are a part of a medical billing process or workflow for healthcare providers to be reimbursed for providing medical services, which relate to managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, these limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” because noticing a frequency among a specified first plurality of times over a first time period is an observation/evaluation/analysis that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claim 1 (similarly to claims 2 and 3).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 4-10 and 13, these claims merely recite specific kinds data, such as: claim 4 - the implantable medical device is an artificial joint, claim 5 - he implantable medical device is an artificial knee or a component, claim 6 - the implantable medical device is an artificial hip or a component, claim 7 – the implantable medical device is an artificial shoulder or a component, 8 – the at least one sensor obtains kinematic data, 9 – the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer, 10 – the at least one sensor comprises a gyroscope, and claim 13 - the qualified event is a number of consecutive steps.
In relation to claims 11-12 and 14-16, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claim 11 - the control circuit is configured to detect a precursor to a qualified event prior to detecting the qualified event, claim 12- the control circuit is configured to sample the sensed signal at a first sampling rate to detect the precursor and to sample the sensed signal at a second sampling rate greater than the first sampling rate to detect the qualified event, claim 14 - the control circuit is further configured to activate the at least one sensor a specified second plurality of times over a second time period, wherein the second time period follows the first time period and the specified second plurality of times is different from the specified first plurality of times, claim 15 - the specified second plurality of times is less than the specified first plurality of times, and claim 16 - the control circuit is further configured transmit the stored samples to a remote location in response to detecting a qualified event.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 2 and 3, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a control circuit, a memory, one or more processors, smart phone, tablet, and laptop to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the control circuit, memory, one or more processors, smart phone, tablet and laptop are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitation ”implantable medical device”, “at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal” and “a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor …”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amounts to merely using a computer, to gather information to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claims 1-3, regarding the additional limitations of the control circuit, memory, one or more processors, smart phone, tablet and laptop, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 2 and 3 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims no not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 3 recite “an implantable medical device, comprising: at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal; and a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor and configured…”, which is unclear whether the implantable medical device, sensor or the coupled control circuit is carrying out the activating, detecting and storing steps and there is no teaching or example in the specification of how to determine the metes and bounds of this term. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art could not ascertain the scope of the claim.
Claims 4-16 incorporate the deficiencies of claims 1-3 through dependency, and are therefore also rejected.
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 .
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 1 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Haim (WO 2015/092747 A2).
Claim 1:
Ben-Haim discloses an implantable medical device (See page 1, lines 17-21 implantable stimulation systems and multiple implants on page 52, line 30 to page 53, line 1.), comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal (See sending sensor reading on page 2, lines 24-30, page 6, lines 10-15. Also, see sensible signal on page 2, line 31 to page 3, line 2 and page 16, lines 24-26.); and
a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor (See on page 2, line 24 to page 3, line 2.) and configured to:
activate the at least one sensor a specified first plurality of times over a first time period, wherein the specified first plurality of times over the first time period corresponds to a frequency (Besides sending power periodically to support sensing (page 37, line 3-11), see page 53, line 23 to page 54, line 5 decreased frequency detection by periodically listening to external control signals. Also, see intrabody part implanted for durations of time between 1 second and one month or longer, for example, between 1 minute and 1 hour or between 6 hours and one month on page 15, lines 19-29.) that qualifies for payment under a reimbursement code ( Besides generating a code indicating reuse when recharging on [page 15, lines 19-29] an exemplary treatment regime, between 1 and 100 or more, for example, between 10 and 50 different external portions may be used with a same internal portion. In only some embodiments, the external portion is reusable, for example by recharging, see exemplary reimbursement process in [page 52, lines 10-19] a card 1408 is sold (or provided by insurance) to the patient. Card 1408 is placed in proximity to implant 1402 (or charger/controller/programmer 1404, in some embodiments), and implant 1402 reads its internal information (e.g., account 1410) to reload credit within the implant 1402.);
detect a qualified event based on samples of the sensor signal generated by the at least one sensor (Taught on page 6, lines 10-15 as sensor reading activating a medical payload link to authorizations.); and
responsive to a detection of a qualified event, store the samples of the sensor signal in a memory (Taught on page 6, lines 1-21 as sensor reading activating a medical payload necessary in storing the authorizations. Also, see sample event that activator charges implant when authorization is needed on page 63, line 19 to page 64, line 3.).
Regarding claim 11, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to detect a precursor to a qualified event prior to detecting the qualified event (Taught on page 59, lines 7-16, where reviewing logs for abnormalities and stickers to signal activity are checked for frequency.).
Regarding claim 12, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to sample the sensed signal at a first sampling rate to detect the precursor and to sample the sensed signal at a second sampling rate greater than the first sampling rate to detect the qualified event (Taught on page 59, lines 7-16, where reviewing logs for abnormalities and stickers to signal activity are checked for frequency serve as qualifying sampling events.).
Regarding claim 13, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the qualified event is a number of consecutive steps (See Fig. 15, page 55, line 26 to page 56, line 13 exemplary consecutive steps of using a charged implant before authenticating account.).
Regarding claim 14, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the control circuit is further configured to activate the at least one sensor a specified second plurality of times over a second time period, wherein the second time period follows the first time period and the specified second plurality of times is different from the specified first plurality of times (Besides sending power periodically to support sensing (page 37, line 3-11), see page 53, line 23 to page 54, line 5 decreased frequency detection by periodically listening to external control signals. Also, see intrabody part implanted for durations of time between 1 second and one month or longer, for example, between 1 minute and 1 hour or between 6 hours and one month on page 15, lines 19-29. See exemplary reimbursement process in page 52, lines 10-19.).
Regarding claim 15, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the specified second plurality of times is less than the specified first plurality of times (Taught in page 15, lines 19-29 as intrabody part implanted for durations of time.).
Regarding claim 16, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the specified second plurality of times is less than the specified first plurality of times (Taught in page 15, lines 19-29 as 1 second, minute or hour on the lower amounts of time in the ranges.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Haim (WO 2015/092747 A2 in view of Roche (US 2010/0250284 A1).
Claim 2:
Ben-Haim discloses an implantable medical device (See page 1, lines 17-21 implantable stimulation systems and multiple implants on page 52, line 30 to page 53, line 1.), comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal (See sending sensor reading on page 2, lines 24-30, page 6, lines 10-15. Also, see sensible signal on page 2, line 31 to page 3, line 2 and page 16, lines 24-26.); and
a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor (See on page 2, line 24 to page 3, line 2.) and configured to:
activate the at least one sensor a specified plurality of times over a time period, wherein the specified plurality of times over the time period (Besides sending power periodically to support sensing (page 37, line 3-11), see page 53, line 23 to page 54, line 5 decreased frequency detection by periodically listening to external control signals. Also, see intrabody part implanted for durations of time between 1 second and one month or longer, for example, between 1 minute and 1 hour or between 6 hours and one month on page 15, lines 19-29. See exemplary reimbursement process in page 52, lines 10-19.);
detect a qualified event based on samples of the sensor signal generated by the at least one sensor (Taught on page 6, lines 10-15 as sensor reading activating a medical payload link to authorizations.); and
responsive to a detection of a qualified event, store the samples of the sensor signal in a memory (Taught on page 6, lines 1-21 as sensor reading activating a medical payload necessary in storing the authorizations. Also, see sample event that activator charges implant when authorization is needed on page 63, line 19 to page 64, line 3.).
Although Ben-Haim discloses an implantable medical device with billing features including codes qualifying a type of payment code as mentioned above, Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach billing features that corresponds to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for payment under a telemedicine insurance code. Roche teaches the billing features that corresponds to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for payment under a telemedicine insurance code (See [abstract, P0057] The pressure sensor converts the pressure to an electrical signal that is received by the ASIC. The at least one accelerometer 222 and GPS 232 provides positioning information at the time of sensing. Telemetry circuitry 232 communicates through a wired or wireless path. In one embodiment, the data is sent to a remote processing unit that can process and display information for use by the surgeon or medical staff. Also, see P0193, P0231 where information sent from the sensor, downloaded via radio frequency tag, used for submitted billing construe scanning and reading a telemedicine code. See [P0231] The entity responsible for operating room 2504 submits a bill for services and components to an appropriate payee of the procedure such as an insurance company or the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when corresponding to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for payment under a telemedicine insurance code as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Claim 3:
Ben-Haim discloses an implantable medical device (See page 1, lines 17-21 implantable stimulation systems and multiple implants on page 52, line 30 to page 53, line 1.), comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate a sensor signal (See sending sensor reading on page 2, lines 24-30, page 6, lines 10-15. Also, see sensible signal on page 2, line 31 to page 3, line 2 and page 16, lines 24-26.); and
a control circuit coupled to the at least one sensor (See on page 2, line 24 to page 3, line 2.) and configured to:
activate the at least one sensor a specified plurality of times over a time period, wherein the specified plurality of times over the time period (Besides sending power periodically to support sensing (page 37, line 3-11), see page 53, line 23 to page 54, line 5 decreased frequency detection by periodically listening to external control signals. Also, see intrabody part implanted for durations of time between 1 second and one month or longer, for example, between 1 minute and 1 hour or between 6 hours and one month on page 15, lines 19-29. See exemplary reimbursement process in page 52, lines 10-19.);
detect a qualified event based on samples of the sensor signal generated by the at least one sensor (Taught on page 6, lines 10-15 as sensor reading activating a medical payload link to authorizations.); and
responsive to a detection of a qualified event, store the samples of the sensor signal in a memory (Taught on page 6, lines 1-21 as sensor reading activating a medical payload necessary in storing the authorizations. Also, see sample event that activator charges implant when authorization is needed on page 63, line 19 to page 64, line 3.).
Although Ben-Haim discloses an implantable medical device with billing features including codes qualifying a type of payment code as mentioned above, Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach billing features that corresponds to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for payment under a telemedicine insurance code. Roche teaches the billing features that corresponds to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for full payment under a telemedicine insurance code (See [abstract, P0057] The pressure sensor converts the pressure to an electrical signal that is received by the ASIC. The at least one accelerometer 222 and GPS 232 provides positioning information at the time of sensing. Telemetry circuitry 232 communicates through a wired or wireless path. In one embodiment, the data is sent to a remote processing unit that can process and display information for use by the surgeon or medical staff. Also, see P0193, P0231 where information sent from the sensor, downloaded via radio frequency tag, used for submitted billing construe scanning and reading a telemedicine code. See [P0231] The entity responsible for operating room 2504 submits a bill for services and components to an appropriate payee of the procedure such as an insurance company or the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when corresponding to a frequency that allows a doctor to qualify for payment under a telemedicine insurance code as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Regarding claim 4, although Ben-Haim discloses the implantable medical device as mentioned above, Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach when the implantable medical device is an artificial joint. Roche teaches wherein the implantable medical device is an artificial joint (See Fig. 5-6, and [P0041] the system is used during orthopedic joint surgery and more specifically during implantation of an artificial joint.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when the implantable medical device is an artificial joint as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Regarding claim 5, although Ben-Haim discloses the implantable medical device mentioned above and the qualified event is a number of steps as mentioned on Ben-Haim’s page 49, line 31 to page 50, line 6, lines 19-29, page 51, lines 3-17 as criteria steps in the form of sold stickers, available credits in an account and after time passes before implant signals activate. Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach when the implantable medical device is an artificial knee or a component. Roche teaches wherein the implantable medical device is an artificial knee or a component thereof (See knee joint in Fig. 5-6, and [P0041] the system is used during orthopedic joint surgery and more specifically during implantation of an artificial joint and designed broadly for use on the skeletal system including but not limited to the spinal column, knee, hip, ankle, shoulder, wrist, articulating, and non-articulating structures.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when the implantable medical device is an artificial knee or a component as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Regarding claim 6, although Ben-Haim discloses the implantable medical device mentioned above and the qualified event is a number of steps as mentioned on Ben-Haim’s page 49, line 31 to page 50, line 6, lines 19-29, page 51, lines 3-17 as criteria steps in the form of sold stickers, available credits in an account and after time passes before implant signals activate, Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach when the implantable medical device is an artificial hip or a component. Roche teaches wherein the implantable medical device is an artificial hip or a component thereof (See hip joint in Fig. 9-10, P0075 and [P0041] the system is used during orthopedic joint surgery and more specifically during implantation of an artificial joint and designed broadly for use on the skeletal system including but not limited to the spinal column, knee, hip, ankle, shoulder, wrist, articulating, and non-articulating structures.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when the implantable medical device is an artificial hip or a component as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Regarding claim 7, although Ben-Haim discloses the implantable medical device as mentioned above, Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach when the implantable medical device is an artificial knee or a component. Roche teaches wherein the implantable medical device is an artificial shoulder or a component thereof (See [P0041] the system is used during orthopedic joint surgery and more specifically during implantation of an artificial joint and designed broadly for use on the skeletal system including but not limited to the spinal column, knee, hip, ankle, shoulder, wrist, articulating, and non-articulating structures.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when the implantable medical device is an artificial shoulder or a component as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Regarding claim 8, although Ben-Haim discloses the implantable medical device as mentioned above, Ben-Haim does not explicitly teach when at least one sensor obtains kinematic data. Roche teaches wherein the at least one sensor obtains kinematic data (See P0207, P0210, monitoring joint kinematics after implant and sensor installation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of orthopedic surgery management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim when the sensor obtains kinematic data as taught by Roche used for billing, patient records, long term monitoring of components, and component recall mentioned in Roche’s P0193.
Regarding claim 9, Ben-Haim discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer (See sensor as an accelerometer on page 22, lines 21-22, page 26, lines 14-16.).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Haim (WO 2015/092747 A2 in view of Roche (US 2010/0250284 A1) further in view of Wasielewski (US 8,241,296 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Wasielewski teaches wherein the at least one sensor comprises a gyroscope (See gyroscope in column 2, lines 38-49, column 18, line 62 to column 19, line 26.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of prosthetic device management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ben-Haim and Roche to utilize a gyroscope sensor as taught by Wasielewski to gauge and guide the positioning of bulky prosthetic devices and jigs while performing implant surgery mentioned in Wasielewski’s column 1, lines 18-31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 103 and applied new art and art already of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached on (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3686 09/23/2024
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686