DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed November 12, 2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Examiner’s Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meulink (US 2008/0021299) in view of Beck (US 2012/0194505).
Regarding claim 1, Meulink discloses a processor-implemented method (figure 2) comprising determining (e.g. via a CAS system, ¶28), for a patient (¶21), a set of leg lengths (figure 4) and offset pairs (figure 4) associated with a set of digital femoral prosthetic templates (elements 50) (e.g. computer generated templates, ¶22, ¶28), wherein each leg length (figure 4) and offset pair (figure 4) corresponds to at least one distinct digital femoral prosthetic template (¶22, ¶28), and wherein each digital prosthetic template (elements 50) (¶22, ¶28) is associated with a distinct prosthetic in a set of prosthetics (figures 5A-5C), receiving, (via CAS system, ¶28) communicatively coupled to the processor (e.g. CAS system, ¶28), at least one of: (i) a selected femoral prosthetic (¶34), wherein the selected femoral prosthetic is comprised in the set of femoral prosthetics (¶34), or (ii) a selected leg length (¶25), wherein the selected leg length is comprised in the set of leg length (figure 4) and offset pairs (figure 4), and interactively displaying (via computer screen, ¶28), through a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device (¶28) communicatively coupled to the processor (e.g. CAS system, ¶28), at least one of: (i) in response to the selected femoral prosthetic (¶34), a first corresponding leg length and offset pair associated with the selected femoral prosthetic (¶35), or (ii) in response to the selected leg length (¶25), information associated with one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶34) associated with the selected leg length (¶25).
Yet, Meulink lacks a detailed description on an user input device communicatively coupled to the processor.
However, Beck teaches an user input device (e.g. mouse or keyboard) (¶48) communicatively coupled to a processor (202).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meulink’s method having a CAS system with an user input device as taught by Beck, since such a modification would facilitate user interaction with a device (¶48).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein the method is performed intraoperatively (¶9 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein interactively displaying information associated with one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics further comprises displaying (via computer screen, ¶28 of Meulink), for each corresponding femoral prosthetic (¶22 of Meulink), a corresponding offset (figures 5A-5C of Meulink).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Meulink’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks a detailed description on wherein the GUI comprises a selection menu displaying at least one of: the set of femoral prosthetics, wherein the selected femoral prosthetic is chosen from the selection menu, or a set of leg lengths, wherein the selected leg length is chosen from the selection menu.
However, Beck teaches a selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75) displaying at least one of: the set of femoral prosthetics (¶75, ¶80), wherein the selected femoral prosthetic is chosen from the selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meulink’s method having a GUI with a selection menu displaying at least one of: the set of femoral prosthetics, wherein the selected femoral prosthetic is chosen from the selection menu as taught by Beck, since such a modification would allow the user to select an implant of a particular manufacturer and size (¶75).
Regarding claims 5, 6, the modified Meulink’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the selection menu is displayed in the form of a chart.
However, Beck teaches a selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75, ¶91) is displayed in the form of a chart (element 516, see figure 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meulink’s method with wherein the selection menu is displayed in the form of a chart as taught Beck, since such a modification would provide a visual to the user on the GUI.
Thus, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein the selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75 of Beck) is displayed in the form of a chart (figure 5B of Beck) and interactively displaying the corresponding leg length (figure 4 of Meulink) and offset pair (figure 4 of Meulink) in response to the selected femoral prosthetic (¶25 of Meulink) comprises highlighting (e.g. with mouse or keyboard) the corresponding leg length and offset pair in the chart (figure 5B of Beck), wherein the selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75 of Beck) is displayed in the form of a chart (figure 5B of Beck) and interactively displaying the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶25 of Meulink) in response to the selected leg length comprises highlighting (e.g. with mouse or keyboard) the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶25 of Meulink) associated with the selected leg length in the chart (figure 5B of Beck).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein receiving the selected leg length comprises receiving user input (¶48 of Beck) indicating the selected leg length from the GUI (e.g. computer screen, ¶28 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Meulink’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein interactively displaying the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics in response to the selected leg length comprises recommending at least one corresponding optimal fit femoral prosthetic, wherein the at least one corresponding optimal fit femoral prosthetic is selected from the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics.
However, Beck teaches the templating application may recommend or choose sizes for the user (¶10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meulink’s method with the step of recommending at least one optimal fit prosthetic as taught Beck, since such a modification would help the user in selecting a properly sized implant (¶10).
Thus, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein interactively displaying the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶25 of Meulink) in response to the selected leg length (figure 4 of Meulink) comprises recommending (¶10 of Beck) at least one corresponding optimal fit femoral prosthetic (¶25 of Meulink), wherein the at least one corresponding optimal fit femoral prosthetic is selected from the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶22 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Meulink’s method discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the user input indicating the selected leg length is provided using a slider control provided by the GUI.
However, Beck teaches a slider control (¶75) provided by the GUI (¶73, ¶75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meulink’s method with a slider control provided by the GUI as taught by Beck, since such a modification would allow the user to select an implant of a particular manufacturer and size (¶75).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein each femoral prosthetic in the set of femoral prosthetics (¶22 of Meulink) comprises a corresponding femoral stem (¶22 of Meulink), and the GUI (e.g. computer screen, ¶28 of Meulink) comprises a linear indication of at least one corresponding femoral stem parameter (figures 3 and 4 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein the at least one corresponding femoral stem parameter comprises a corresponding femoral stem size (¶24 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein the selected femoral prosthetic (¶22 of Meulink) comprises a corresponding femoral stem size selection (¶22 of Meulink), wherein the corresponding femoral stem size selection is made using the linear indication (¶22 of Meulink), and wherein interactively displaying (e.g. computer screen, ¶28 of Meulink) the first corresponding leg length and offset pair occurs in response to the corresponding femoral stem size selection (¶24 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein interactively displaying the first corresponding leg length and offset pair in response to the selected femoral prosthetic comprises displaying (e.g. computer screen, ¶28 of Meulink) changes to a second corresponding leg length (¶30 and figure 4 of Meulink) and offset pair (¶30 and figure 4 of Meulink) relative to the first corresponding leg length (figure 4 of Meulink) and offset pair (figure 4 of Meulink), wherein the second corresponding leg length and offset pair (¶30 and figure 4 of Meulink) is associated with a previously selected femoral prosthetic (¶22 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Meulink’s method has wherein for each distinct femoral prosthetic in the set of femoral prosthetics (¶22 of Meulink), a corresponding leg length and offset pair is determined based on a corresponding first reference point (figures 3 and 4 of Meulink) associated with a corresponding femoral prosthetic template (50) and a second reference point on a femur (27 of Meulink) of the patient in a preoperative surgical image (step 104, see figure 2 of Meulink).
Regarding claim 15, Meulink discloses a system (figures 2-6) comprising determine (e.g. via a CAS system, ¶28), for a patient (¶21), a set of leg length (figure 4) and offset pairs (figure 4) associated with a set of digital femoral prosthetic templates (elements 50) (e.g. computer generated templates, ¶22, ¶28), wherein each leg length (figure 4) and offset pair (figure 4) corresponds to at least one distinct digital femoral prosthetic template (¶22), and wherein each digital prosthetic template (elements 50) (¶22, ¶28) is associated with a distinct prosthetic in a set of prosthetics (figures 5A-5C), receive, at least one of: (i) a selected femoral prosthetic, wherein the selected femoral prosthetic is comprised in the set of femoral prosthetics (¶34), or (ii) a selected leg length (¶25), wherein the selected leg length is comprised in the set of leg length (figure 4) and offset pairs (figure 4), and interactively display, using the GUI (e.g. computer screen, ¶28), on the display device: at least one of (i) in response to the selected femoral prosthetic (¶34), a first corresponding leg length and offset pair associated with the selected femoral prosthetic (¶35), or (ii) in response to the selected leg length (¶25), information associated with one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶34) associated with the selected leg length (¶25).
Yet, Meulink lacks a detailed description on a memory, at least one input device to interact with a Graphical User Interface (GUI), a display device to display the GUI, and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the at least one input device, and the display device.
However, Beck teaches a memory (204) (¶45 and figure 2), at least one input device (e.g. mouse or keyboard, ¶48) to interact with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (¶48), a display device (¶39) to display the GUI (¶48), and a processor (202) communicatively coupled to the memory (204), the at least one input device (208), and the display device (figures 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meulink’s system with a memory, at least one input device to interact with a Graphical User Interface (GUI), a display device to display the GUI, and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, the at least one input device, and the display device as taught by Beck, since such a modification would facilitate user interaction with a device (¶48).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Meulink’s system discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the GUI comprises a selection menu displaying the set of femoral prosthetics and the selected femoral prosthetic is chosen from the selection menu, or a set of leg lengths, wherein the selected leg length is chosen from the selection menu.
However, Beck teaches a selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75) displaying the set of femoral prosthetics (¶75, ¶80) and the selected femoral prosthetic is chosen from the selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meulink’s system having a GUI with displaying the set of femoral prosthetics and the selected femoral prosthetic is chosen from the selection menu as taught by Beck, since such a modification would allow the user to select an implant of a particular manufacturer and size (¶75).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Meulink’s system discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the selection menu is displayed in the form of a chart and to interactively display the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics in response to the selected leg length, the processor is configured to highlight the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics in the chart.
However, Beck teaches a selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75, ¶91) is displayed in the form of a chart (element 516, see figure 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meulink’s system with wherein the selection menu is displayed in the form of a chart as taught Beck, since such a modification would provide a visual to the user on the GUI.
Thus, the modified Meulink’s system has wherein the selection menu (e.g. menus, ¶75 of Beck) is displayed in the form of a chart (figure 5B of Beck) and to interactively display the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶25 of Meulink) in response to the selected leg length (figure 4 of Meulink), the processor (202 of Beck) is configured to (i.e. capable of) highlight (e.g. with mouse or keyboard) the one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶25 of Meulink) in the chart (figure 5B of Beck).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Meulink’s system has wherein to receive the selected the leg length, the processor (202 of Beck) is configured to (i.e. capable of) receive user input (¶48 of Beck) indicating the selected leg length from the GUI (¶48 of Beck).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Meulink’s system discloses all the features/elements as claimed but lacks wherein the processor is configured to receive user input indicating the selected leg length from a slider control provided by the GUI.
However, Beck teaches a slider control (¶75) provided by the GUI (¶73, ¶75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Meulink’s system with a slider control provided by the GUI as taught by Beck, since such a modification would allow the user to select an implant of a particular manufacturer and size (¶75).
Thus, the modified Meulink’s system has wherein the processor (202 of Beck) is configured to (i.e. capable of) receive user input (¶48 of Beck) indicating the selected leg length from a slider control (¶75 of Beck) provided by the GUI (¶48 of Beck).
Regarding claim 20, Meulink discloses determine (e.g. via a CAS system, ¶28), for a patient (¶21), a set of leg length (figure 4) and offset pairs (figure 4) associated with a set of femoral prosthetics (¶22), wherein each leg length (figure 4) and offset pair (figure 4) corresponds to at least one distinct femoral prosthetic of the set of femoral prosthetics (¶22), receive, at least one of: a selected femoral prosthetic (¶34), wherein the selected femoral prosthetic is comprised in the set of femoral prosthetics (¶34), or (ii) a selected leg length (¶25), wherein the selected leg length is comprised in the set of leg length (figure 4) and offset pairs (figure 4), and interactively display, through a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device (e.g. computer screen, ¶28) communicatively coupled to the processor (e.g. CAS system, ¶28), at least one of: (i) in response to the selected femoral prosthetic (¶34), a first corresponding leg length and offset pair associated with the selected femoral prosthetic (¶35), or (ii) in response to the selected leg length (¶25), one or more corresponding femoral prosthetics (¶34) associated with the selected leg length (¶25).
Yet, Meulink lacks a detailed description on an user input device communicatively coupled to a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions to configure a processor.
However, Beck teaches an user input device (e.g. mouse or keyboard) (¶48) communicatively coupled to a processor (202) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (¶49) comprising instructions (¶49) to configure a processor (202) (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meulink’s CAS system with an user input device communicatively coupled to a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions to configure a processor as taught by Beck, since such a modification would facilitate user interaction with a device (¶48) and would cause the computing device to perform operations (¶49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), of the Remarks are directed to the amended claims and the reference Meulink. Applicant argues that Meulink does not teach the amended feature of “a user input device”. Thus, the Examiner has relied on the reference Beck to teach this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Meulink’s method having a CAS system with an user input device as taught by Beck, since such a modification would facilitate user interaction with a device (¶48).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Conclusion
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 SI MING KU whose telephone number is (571)270-5450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30am-6pm.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at (571)272-4705. 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.
/SI MING KU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775