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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 04/30/2026
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1 and 10 were amended.
Claims 16 is new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2026 and 04/30/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 6-8, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to 35 USC 101 rejection has been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes, remarks page 6, “certain embodiments are useful for verifying a planar cut to a target bone and visualizing its future effect before the cut is actually performed” are not part of the claimed invention. Thus, lacking practical application. The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-15 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 9-17, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-15 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it lacks clarity, there is no text labels on any drawing as to indicate the components. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 and 16 are directed to the statutory category of processes.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1:
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
A computer-implemented method for intra-operatively predicting an outcome of a planar cut performed with a planar surgical tool on a target bone of a subject, wherein said planar surgical tool comprises a planar cutting surface, said method comprising:
receiving at least one 3D image previously acquired from at least one 3D imaging sensor; said 3D image being a 3D point cloud comprising at least one portion of the target bone and at least one portion of planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool;
segmenting the 3D image to obtain points of the 3D image belonging to the planar cutting surface of the surgical tool and points of the 3D image belonging to the target bone;
obtaining a spatial orientation and position of an osteotomy plane by fitting a plane to the segmented points belonging to the planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool;
overlapping the osteotomy plane to the segmented points belonging to the target bone and selecting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the planar surgical tool; and
outputting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool prior to performing the planar cut.
The limitations “predicting an outcome of a planar cut performed with a planar surgical tool on a target bone of a subject”, “segmenting the 3D image to obtain points of the 3D image belonging to the planar cutting surface of the surgical tool and points of the 3D image belonging to the target bone”, “fitting a plane to the segmented points belonging to the planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool”, “overlapping the osteotomy plane to the segmented points belonging to the target bone” and “selecting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the planar surgical tool”. The limitation, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could, mentally or on paper, receive a 3D point cloud image on a piece of paper, and segment it using a pencil, a fit a plane on the segmented portion, and overlay the plane over the 3D point cloud image.
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A computer-implemented method for and wherein said planar surgical tool comprises a planar cutting surface” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“receiving at least one 3D image previously acquired from at least one 3D imaging sensor; said 3D image being a 3D point cloud comprising at least one portion of the target bone and at least one portion of planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“obtaining a spatial orientation and position of an osteotomy plane” (general field of use and data gathering – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
“outputting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool prior to performing the planar cut” (general field of use and data displaying – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 1 Step 2B:
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations considered directed towards field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP2106.05(g).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further recites: “further comprising generating a simulated 3D model of the removed bone portion using the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the outcomes that are being determined (mental observation of outputting) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites “further comprising: receiving a 3D model of the bone and a preoperative planning comprising equations of planned cutting planes in a reference frame of the 3D model of the bone, obtaining a planned 3D model of the removed bone portion by applying the equations of the planned cutting planes to the 3D model of the bone, comparing the simulated 3D model and said planned 3D model of the removed bone portion and outputting the result of said comparison” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the 3D models that are being compared (mental observation of determining the difference) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the result of the comparison is a 3D shape similarity measure or a matching error” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data that is being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites “further comprising calculating principal components of the simulated 3D model, defining from the principal components a bounding box of the removed bone portion and estimating from the bounding box a thickness of the removed bone portion” The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the models that are being determined (mental observation of estimating) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, or alternatively, the limitation is considered to further define the mathematical formula. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites “further comprising comparing said estimated thickness of the removed bone portion to a planned thickness of the removed bone portion and outputting an alert whenever a deviation from the planned thickness is detected” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify estimating thickness (mental observation of estimating) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the surgical tool comprises a fiducial marker to help obtaining the spatial orientation and position of the osteotomy plane.” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the objects that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the target bone is a femur or a tibia” This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the bones that are being considered. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16 recites “wherein outputting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with surgical tool prior to performing the planar cut” These feature(s) have been considered in combination with the feature required by the claim(s) from which it depends. The additional feature(s) are considered to further clarify the outcomes that are being determined (mental observation of outputting) under step 2A prong 1 of the abstract idea analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). “comprises transferring information to a display to visualize the portion of target bone intended to be removed”. This limitation is considered to be a field of use limitation, because it defines the type of data that is being considered for visualization. see MPEP 2106.05(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim is considered to be ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 1; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Step 1:
Claim 10 Step 2A prong 1:
The claim language is substantially similar as claim 1, except for the following claim elements/limitations: A system for
The claim does not include any additional abstract ideas from claim 1
Claim 10 Step 2A prong 2:
Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present general field of use or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
“A system for” (general field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h)) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Claim 10 Step 2B:
The additional limitations found in claim 10, this additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (system, processor) and would function in its ordinary capacity for executing code, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more. Step 2A Prong I and Step 2B.
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 10 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claims 2; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 3; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 5; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 6; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as stated in claim 4; therefore, it is being rejected under 35 USC 101 under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang et al. US 11,553,969 B1, Filed: Feb 14, 2019 (hereafter Lang).
Regarding claim 1. Lang teaches a computer-implemented method for intra-operatively predicting an outcome of a planar cut performed with a planar surgical tool on a target bone of a subject (Fig 2, intra-operative measurements, patients knee) (Col 235, Par 2, virtual proximal tibial cut plane), wherein said planar surgical tool comprises a planar cutting surface (Col 236, Par 1, superimposed with the predetermined cut plane for the proximal tibial cut guide), said method comprising:
receiving at least one 3D image previously acquired from at least one 3D imaging sensor (Fig 12A, obtain imaging with 3D dataset);
said 3D image being a 3D point cloud comprising at least one portion of the target bone and at least one portion of planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool (Col 50, process data, point cloud data) (Col 187, Par 2, virtual surgical guide, point cloud and surface of an articular surface) (Fig 15A and B, displays a portion of the bone and the portion of the planar cutting surface) (Col 69, Par 3, virtual plane that the primary surgeon has moved and aligned to be tangent with the most superiors aspect of the greater trochanter);
segmenting the 3D image to obtain points of the 3D image belonging to the planar cutting surface of the surgical tool and points of the 3D image belonging to the target bone (Fig 15A and 15B, physical femur and tibia, align with the virtual cutting plane) (Col 152, Par 3, virtual cut block, display virtual surgical instrument);
obtaining a spatial orientation and position of an osteotomy plane by fitting a plane to the segmented points belonging to the planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool (Col 192, Par 2, articular surface, osteophyte, detect difference between actual and virtual);
overlapping the osteotomy plane to the segmented points belonging to the target bone (Col 53, Par 4, overlay or superimposition of virtual data on live surgery) (Fig 2, superimposed onto surgical site, virtual surgical guide, virtual block, virtual alignment guide, virtual cut plane) and selecting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the planar surgical tool (Fig 15A and 15B, align cut guides, 980, , 983); and
outputting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool prior to performing the planar cut (Col 11, Par 3, virtual surgical guide, predetermined start and end point) (Fig 15A and 15B, output display, femur and tibia bone, with overlay target bone predetermine positions).
Regarding claim 2. Lang teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising generating a simulated 3D model of the removed bone portion using the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool (Fig 15A, element 980).
Regarding claim 3. Lang teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
receiving a 3D model of the bone and a preoperative planning comprising equations of planned cutting planes in a reference frame of the 3D model of the bone (Fig 6, perform surgical step),
obtaining a planned 3D model of the removed bone portion by applying the equations of the planned cutting planes to the 3D model of the bone (Fig 6, Assess actual changes induce in live patient),
comparing the simulated 3D model and said planned 3D model of the removed bone portion (Fig 6, Compare actual changes, live patient with intended or projected changes in virtual surgical plan) and
outputting the result of said comparison (Fig 6, Determine magnitude of difference between actual and intended).
Regarding claim 4. Lang teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the result of the comparison is a 3D shape similarity measure or a matching error (Fig 6, Acceptable or Not acceptable) (Col 121, Par 1, the magnitude of the differences, are acceptable, the surgeon can perform the next actual step, or repeated if not acceptable).
Regarding claim 7. Lang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the surgical tool comprises a fiducial marker to help obtaining the spatial orientation and position of the osteotomy plane (Col 122, Par 3, optical markers in static position) (Fig 15, cube markers with codes) (Fig 19, markers) (Fig 20, optical markers attached for tracking the surgical instruments).
Regarding claim 8. Lang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the target bone is a femur or a tibia (Fig 15, femur and tibia).
Regarding claim 9. Lang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1 (Col 54, Par 2, processors configured to perform the steps) (Claim 9 comprises the steps according to claim 1, and is rejected as was rejected claim 1).
Regarding claim 10. Lang teaches a system for intra-operatively predicting an outcome of a planar cut performed with a planar surgical tool on a target bone of a subject (Fig 2, intra-operative measurements, patients knee) (Col 235, Par 2, virtual proximal tibial cut plane), wherein the planar surgical tool comprises a planar cutting surface (Col 236, Par 1, superimposed with the predetermined cut plane for the proximal tibial cut guide), said system comprising:
at least one input adapted to receive at least one 3D image previously acquired from at least one 3D imaging sensor (Fig 12A, obtain imaging with 3D dataset), said 3D image being a 3D point cloud comprising at least one portion of the target bone and at least one portion of the planar cutting surface of the surgical tool (Col 50, process data, point cloud data) (Col 187, Par 2, virtual surgical guide, point cloud and surface of an articular surface) (Fig 15A and B, displays a portion of the bone and the portion of the planar cutting surface) (Col 69, Par 3, virtual plane that the primary surgeon has moved and aligned to be tangent with the most superiors aspect of the greater trochanter),
at least one processor (Col 54, Par 2, processors configured to perform the steps) configured to:
segment the 3D image to obtain points of the 3D image belonging to the planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool and points of the 3D image belonging to the target bone (Fig 15A and 15B, physical femur and tibia, align with the virtual cutting plane) (Col 152, Par 3, virtual cut block, display virtual surgical instrument);
obtain a spatial orientation and position of an osteotomy plane by 3D fitting the segmented points belonging to the planar cutting surface of the planar surgical tool (Col 192, Par 2, articular surface, osteophyte, detect difference between actual and virtual); and
overlap the osteotomy plane to the segmented points belonging to the target bone (Col 53, Par 4, overlay or superimposition of virtual data on live surgery) (Fig 2, superimposed onto surgical site, virtual surgical guide, virtual block, virtual alignment guide, virtual cut plane) and
selecting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the planar surgical tool (Fig 15A and 15B, align cut guides, 980, , 983); and
at least one output adapted to provide the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool prior to performing the planar cut (Col 11, Par 3, virtual surgical guide, predetermined start and end point) (Fig 15A and 15B, output display, femur and tibia bone, with overlay target bone predetermine positions).
Regarding claim 11. Lang teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate a simulated 3D model of the removed bone portion using the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with the surgical tool (Fig 15A, element 980).
Regarding claim 12. Lang teaches the system according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
receive a 3D model of the bone and a preoperative planning comprising equations of the planned cutting planes in a reference frame of the 3D model of the bone (Fig 6, perform surgical step),
obtain a planned 3D model of the removed bone portion by applying the equations of the cutting planes to the 3D model of the bone (Fig 6, Assess actual changes induce in live patient),
compare the simulated 3D model and said planned 3D model of the removed bone portion using 3D shape analysis (Fig 6, Compare actual changes, live patient with intended or projected changes in virtual surgical plan) and
output the result of said comparison (Fig 6, Determine magnitude of difference between actual and intended).
Regarding claim 15. Lang teaches the system according to claim 12, wherein
the result of the comparison between the simulated 3D model and said planned 3D model is a 3D shape similarity measure or a matching error (Fig 6, Acceptable or Not acceptable) (Col 121, Par 1, the magnitude of the differences, are acceptable, the surgeon can perform the next actual step, or repeated if not acceptable).
Regarding claim 16. Lang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein outputting the points belonging to the portion of target bone intended to be removed with surgical tool prior to performing the planar cut comprises transferring information to a display to visualize the portion of target bone intended to be removed (Fig 1, project holograms of virtual data into a view of left eye using left eye view position and orientation superimposing holograms on live data, 26) (Fig 2, Displays holograms of virtual data in common coordinate system superimposed onto surgical site, 49).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. US 11,553,969 B1, Filed: Feb 14, 2019 (hereafter Lang), in views of Lukas Jud, “Combined Correction of Tibial Torsion and Tibial Tuberosity-Trochlear Groove Distance by Supratuberositary Torsional Osteotomy of the Tibia (hereafter Jud).
Regarding claim 5. Lang teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising
calculating components of the simulated 3D model (Fig 15A and 15B, Femoral guide match, 980),
defining a bounding box of the removed bone portion (Fig 15, bounding component 983, 980) and
estimating a thickness of the removed bone portion (Fig 15, component to be removed, has area and volume, 980).
Lang does not teach a principal component defining a bound box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box.
Jud teaches a principal component defining a bound box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box (Jud, Jud, Page 2262, col 2, an oriented bounding box around the proximal fragment was generated per principal component analysis) (Jud, Page 2263, col 2, box was extended until the most anterior point was identified).
Both Lang and Jud are considered to be analogous arts, because both relate to 3D modeling of bones. Lang: e.g., Col 43, par 2; Jud: e.g., page 2260 “Methods” paragraph. Lang discloses modeling and superimposing methods; however, Lang fails to specifically disclose a principal component defining a bounding box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box. On the other hand, Jud discloses using a bounding box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box, which is beneficial, because it provides enhanced ways to predict corrections to the planned surgery. Jud: e.g., page 2261, col 1 paragraph 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the bounding box and thickness estimation as Jud to the method of Lang to enhance accuracy and provide predicted corrections to the method.
Regarding claim 6. Lang and Jud teach the method according to claim 5, further comprising
comparing said estimated thickness of the removed bone portion to a planned thickness of the removed bone portion (Lang, Col 221, Lines 50-60, determine the thickness, area, volume of the bone, intended bone removal) and
outputting an alert whenever a deviation from the planned thickness is detected (Lang, Col 224, Lines 25-35, operating outside the safe zone, changes the color to red, to change the to be within the target zone).
Regarding claim 13. Lang teaches the system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to
calculating components of the simulated 3D model (Fig 15A and 15B, Femoral guide match, 980),
defining a bounding box of the removed bone portion (Fig 15, bounding component 983, 980) and
estimating a thickness of the removed bone portion (Fig 15, component to be removed, has area and volume, 980).
Lang does not teach a principal component defining a bound box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box.
Jud teaches a principal component defining a bound box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box (Jud, Jud, Page 2262, col 2, an oriented bounding box around the proximal fragment was generated per principal component analysis)
Both Lang and Jud are considered to be analogous arts, because both relate to 3D modeling of bones. Lang: e.g., Col 43, par 2; Jud: e.g., page 2260 “Methods” paragraph. Lang discloses modeling and superimposing methods; however, Lang fails to specifically disclose a principal component defining a bounding box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box. On the other hand, Jud discloses using a bounding box and estimating a thickness from the bounding box, which is beneficial, because it provides enhanced ways to predict corrections to the planned surgery. Jud: e.g., page 2261, col 1 paragraph 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the bounding box and thickness estimation as Jud to the method of Lang to enhance accuracy and provide predicted corrections to the method.
Regarding claim 14. Lang and Jud teach the system according to claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to
comparing said estimated thickness of the removed bone portion to a planned thickness of the removed bone portion (Lang, Col 221, Lines 50-60, determine the thickness, area, volume of the bone, intended bone removal) and
outputting an alert whenever a deviation from the planned thickness is detected (Lang, Col 224, Lines 25-35, operating outside the safe zone, changes the color to red, to change the to be within the target zone).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights