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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/28/2026 has been entered. Amendments to claims 1 and 17 are acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 17-31 remain pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 17-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “automatically interrogate a sensor device to retrieve a first data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates collected by the sensor device, the sensor device configured to be implanted into a patient in a fixed location on or within a first bone of the joint,”, “automatically interrogate a sensor device to retrieve a second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates collected by the sensor device when the sensor device is within the communication range of the computer system at a second time, wherein the second time is subsequent to the first time”, “analyze the first data set and the second data set to calculate a first center of rotation location and a second center of rotation location including constructing a first best fit model land a second best-fit model to the first data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates and the second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates respectively to calculate a first center of rotation location and a second center of rotation location, the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location corresponding to respective first and second geometric centers of the first best fit model and the second best fit model”, “compare the first center of rotation location to the second center of rotation location to track migration in the center of rotation of the joint over time”, and “display, on a-user interface, the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location on a graphical representation of a glenoid, a change from the first center of rotation location to the second center of rotation location indicating migration of a humerus away from a glenoid of the joint.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). In this case, observing a first and second set of data from a sensor, calculating a mathematical center of rotation from the data using a model, and displaying that data are all mental steps that may be performed in the human mind with the use of a pen and paper. The addition of a “sensor” and “user interface” do not contribute to more than a mental process as “a sensor device” is well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0006]: “implant sensor node in a conventional implantable body sensor network.” of Hong et al. (US 20140285359 A1) and a user interface is a generic computer structure that is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a sensor device” and “computer system” in claim 1 and “a smart phone or mobile device” and “processing circuitry” in claim 7. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0006]: “implant sensor node in a conventional implantable body sensor network.” of Hong et al. (US 20140285359 A1). Regarding the “computer system”, “smartphone or mobile device”, and “processing circuitry”, a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-8 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 1-8 and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 17 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “collect a first data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates when the first sensor device is within a communication range of a computer system at a first time”, “analyze the first data set collected by the first sensor device at a first time to calculate a first center of rotation location,”, “analyze the second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates when the sensor device is within the communication range of the computer system collected by the first sensor device at the second time to calculate a second center of rotation location including constructing a first best fit model land a second best-fit model to the first data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates and the second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates respectively to calculate a first center of rotation location and a second center of rotation location, the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location corresponding to respective first and second geometric centers of the first best fit model and the second best fit model”, “comparing the first center of rotation location to the second center of rotation location by mapping the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location, to track migration in the center of rotation of the joint over time.” and “display, on a-user interface, the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location on a graphical representation of a glenoid, a change from the first center of rotation location to the second center of rotation location indicating migration of a humerus away from a glenoid of the joint.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). In this case, observing a first and second set of data from a sensor, calculating a mathematical center of rotation from the data using a model, and displaying that data are all mental steps that may be performed in the human mind with the use of a pen and paper. The addition of a “sensor” and “user interface” do not contribute to more than a mental process as “a sensor device” is well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0006]: “implant sensor node in a conventional implantable body sensor network.” of Hong et al. (US 20140285359 A1) and a user interface is a generic computer structure that is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a first/second sensor device”, “user interface” “circuitry”, and “computer system” in claim 17 and “a smart phone or mobile device” in claim 23. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0006]: “implant sensor node in a conventional implantable body sensor network.” of Hong et al. (US 20140285359 A1). Regarding the “computer system”, “smartphone or mobile device”, “user interface”, and “processing circuitry”, a generic computer structure is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 17 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 18-23 and 30-31 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 17-23 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 –
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 17, 19, 21-22, 24, 27, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN108324282A)
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a sensing system for tracking a center of rotation of a joint (title, abstract), comprising: a computer system ([0012]: “host computer”) including: processing circuitry configured to perform operations including ([0013]: “the writing of the algorithm application… data processing subroutine”): automatically interrogate a sensor device to retrieve a first data set collected by a sensor device ([0013]: “The host computer receives signals from the position tracking sensor and the pose tracking sensor.”), the sensor device configured to be implanted into a patient in a fixed location on or within a first bone of the joint ([0009]: “Four position tracking sensors are respectively attached and fixed to the jugular notch (IJ), xiphoid cartilage (PX), seventh cervical vertebra (C7), and eighth thoracic vertebra (T8) of the human body.”), the sensor device configured to collect data associated with movement of the first bone of the joint at a first time ([0013]: “it calculates the position and posture of each bone at each moment of movement in real time”); retrieve a second data set collected by the sensor device at a second time, wherein the second time is subsequent to the first time ([0009]: “to detect the position and posture of the human scapula in real time.”); analyze the first data set and the second data set including constructing a first best fit model and a second best fit model to the first data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates and the second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates respectively ([0018]: “establish a kinematic model of the human shoulder joint based on the anatomical structure of the human shoulder bones and joints, and accurately obtain the motion information of the rotation center of the human shoulder glenohumeral joint”, [0010]: “This process is repeated multiple times” wherein the process is repeated for the first and second data sets, and [0064-0066]: “total error function…using nonlinear optimization” equations 1-14,), the first center of rotation location and a second center of rotation location second center of rotation location corresponding to respective first and second geometric centers of the first best fit model and the second best fit model ([0072]: “, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center”); compare the first center of rotation location to the second center of rotation location to track migration in the center of rotation of the joint over time ([0057]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data in the host computer's memory is retrieved, and the position and posture of the glenohumeral joint rotation center relative to the scapula remain unchanged.” [0007]: “the center of rotation of the shoulder joint drifts relative to the sternum. Moreover, the drift trajectory is not linear but consists of multiple low-curvature arcs. Furthermore, the drift of the shoulder center is not limited to the sagittal plan”, [0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle”) and display the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location on a graphical representation of a glenoid, a change from the first center of rotation away from a glenoid of the joint ([0007]: “the center of rotation of the shoulder joint drifts relative to the sternum. Moreover, the drift trajectory is not linear but consists of multiple low-curvature arcs. Furthermore, the drift of the shoulder center is not limited to the sagittal plan”, [0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface.”, wherein the migration of the center of rotation is displayed at every moment, and in the case that there is change away from the glenoid joint it will be observed).
Regarding claim 5, Li further discloses activating circuitry operably coupled to the sensor device to periodically collect an additional data set at a time subsequent to the first time ([0013]: “it calculates the position and posture of each bone at each moment of movement in real time.”) and comparing an additional center of rotation location to at least one of the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location, to track migration in a center of rotation of the joint over time ([0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface. The process involves sequentially calling, processing, storing, and displaying the data”)
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to map the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location ([0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface. The process involves sequentially calling, processing, storing, and displaying the data”).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses a method for tracking a center of rotation of a joint using a sensing system (title, abstract), comprising: activating circuitry operably coupled to a first sensor device ([0013]: “The host computer receives signals from the position tracking sensor and the pose tracking sensor.”), to automatically interrogate a sensor device to collect a first data associated with movement of the first bone of the joint at a first time when the first sensor device is within a communication range of a computer system for the first time ([0013]: “it calculates the position and posture of each bone at each moment of movement in real time”, [0012]: “The USB transmission module, which uses a data acquisition card to detect signals from various tracking sensors, connects to a host computer via a USB interface to transmit the corresponding skeletal motion signals detected by each tracking sensor.”), the sensor device configured to be implanted into a patient in a first fixed location on or within a first bone of the joint ([0009]: “Four position tracking sensors are respectively attached and fixed to the jugular notch (IJ), xiphoid cartilage (PX), seventh cervical vertebra (C7), and eighth thoracic vertebra (T8) of the human body.”); wherein the sensing system includes the computer system configured to analyze the first data set collected by the first sensor device at a first time to calculate a first center of rotation ([0013]: “host computer”, [0018]: “and accurately obtain the motion information of the rotation center of the human shoulder glenohumeral joint within one cycle by writing an application program and a data processing subroutine through corresponding algorithm”); activating circuitry operably coupled to the first sensor device to automatically interrogate a sensor device to collect a second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates when the sensor device is within the communication range of the computer system at a second time ([0009]: “to detect the position and posture of the human scapula in real time.”, [0072]: “the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle”, wherein the second time is the second moment, [0012]); wherein the computer system is configured to analyze the first data set and the second data set collected by the first sensor device at the first and second time including constructing a first best fit model and a second best fit model to the first data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates and the second data set of three-dimensional positional coordinates respectively to calculate a second center of rotation ([0018]: “establish a kinematic model of the human shoulder joint based on the anatomical structure of the human shoulder bones and joints, and accurately obtain the motion information of the rotation center of the human shoulder glenohumeral joint”, [0010]: “This process is repeated multiple times” wherein the process is repeated for the first and second data sets, and [0064-0066]: “total error function…using nonlinear optimization” equations 1-14,), the first center of rotation location and a second center of rotation location second center of rotation location corresponding to respective first and second geometric centers of the first best fit model and the second best fit model ([0072]: “, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center”); comparing the first center of rotation location to the second center of rotation location to track migration in the center of rotation of the joint over time ([0057]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data in the host computer's memory is retrieved, and the position and posture of the glenohumeral joint rotation center relative to the scapula remain unchanged.” [0007]: “the center of rotation of the shoulder joint drifts relative to the sternum. Moreover, the drift trajectory is not linear but consists of multiple low-curvature arcs. Furthermore, the drift of the shoulder center is not limited to the sagittal plan”, [0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle”); and display the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location on a graphical representation of a glenoid, a change from the first center of rotation away from a glenoid of the joint ([0007]: “the center of rotation of the shoulder joint drifts relative to the sternum. Moreover, the drift trajectory is not linear but consists of multiple low-curvature arcs. Furthermore, the drift of the shoulder center is not limited to the sagittal plan”, [0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface.”, wherein the migration of the center of rotation is displayed at every moment, and in the case that there is change away from the glenoid joint it will be observed).
Regarding claim 19, Li further discloses wherein activating circuitry operably coupled to the sensor device to collect the first data set and the second data set includes moving a limb associated with the joint through a range of motion of the joint ([0010]: “the human upper arm is raised from a hanging position until it reaches the pre-measurement point, thus completing one measurement cycle.”)
Regarding claim 20, Li further discloses the sensing system further comprises a second sensor device configured to be implanted in a second fixed position on or within a second bone of the joint ([0009]: “Four position tracking sensors are respectively attached and fixed to the jugular notch (IJ), xiphoid cartilage (PX), seventh cervical vertebra (C7), and eighth thoracic vertebra (T8) of the human body.”) the second sensor device configured to collect data associated with movement of the second bone of the joint ([0009]) wherein the first data set and the second data set include data from the first sensor device and the second sensor device ([0009]).
Regarding claim 21, Li further discloses activating circuitry operably coupled to the sensor device to periodically collect an additional data set at a time subsequent to the first time ([0013]: “it calculates the position and posture of each bone at each moment of movement in real time.”) and comparing an additional center of rotation location to at least one of the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location, to track migration in a center of rotation of the joint over time ([0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface. The process involves sequentially calling, processing, storing, and displaying the data”).
Regarding claim 22, Li further discloses activating circuitry operably coupled to the sensor device to periodically collect an additional data set at a time subsequent to the first time ([0013]: “it calculates the position and posture of each bone at each moment of movement in real time.”) and comparing an additional center of rotation location to at least one of the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location, to track migration in a center of rotation of the joint over time ([0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface. The process involves sequentially calling, processing, storing, and displaying the data”)
Regarding claim 24, Li further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to map the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location ([0072]: “Once a cycle of data detection is complete, the data processing subroutine is called to obtain the position of the rotation center in the human sternal coordinate system at each moment within a cycle, store it at a specified location on the host computer, and display it on the host computer's display interface. The process involves sequentially calling, processing, storing, and displaying the data”).
Regarding claim 27, Li further discloses wherein mapping the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location includes generating a moving graphical representation illustrating migration of the center of rotation over time, the moving graphical representation displayable to a user on a display device of the computer system ([0072]).
Regarding claim 29, Li further discloses a wearable transmitter device configured to be operably coupled to the sensor device to wirelessly power, read, and control the sensor device ([0012]: “The USB transmission module, which uses a data acquisition card to detect signals from various tracking sensors, connects to a host computer via a USB interface to transmit the corresponding skeletal motion signals detected by each tracking sensor.”)
Regarding claim 31, Li further discloses wherein the first bone of the joint is a humerus (Fig 3) and the second bone of the joint is a scapula (Fig 3).
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) 2-4, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Roche et al. (US 20210315715 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein the joint is a glenohumeral joint ([0001]), but fails to disclose wherein the sensor device is configured to be implanted within a humerus of the patient.
Roche discloses a joint tracking system (abstract), wherein the sensor device is implanted within a humerus of the patient ([0087]: "Stem 104 is inserted into the medullary cavity of humerus 110").
As Li discloses disposing a sensor on a humerus ([0009]: “the position tracking sensor transmitter to detect the real-time position of the human humerus”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known sensor disclosed by Li with known implanted sensor disclosed by Roche for the predictable result of tracking a humerus of the patient.
Regarding claim 3, Roche further discloses the joint is a replacement glenohumeral joint ([0087]: "Prosthetic shoulder joint", [0089]: "glenoid prosthesis 114"), and wherein the first sensor device is located within a humeral component of the replacement glenohumeral joint extending on or within a humerus (Fig 1 element 104 inserted into humerus 110).
Regarding claim 4, Li fails to disclose the first data set includes acceleration data and rate of rotation data that corresponds to movement of a limb associated with the joint through a range of motion of the joint.
Roche discloses a first data set includes acceleration data and rate of rotation data ([0081]: “The physical parameter or parameters of interest can include, but are not limited to, measurement of alignment, load, force, pressure, position, displacement, density, viscosity, pH, spurious accelerations… evaluated relative to orientation, alignment, direction, displacement, or position as well as movement, rotation, or acceleration along an axis”) that corresponds to movement of a limb associated with the joint through a range of motion of the joint ([0079]: “The kinetic system provides the surgeon real-time dynamic data regarding force, pressure, or loading on the shoulder joint, contact and congruency through a full range of motion, and information regarding impingement.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the data set disclosed by Li to include the acceleration and rate of rotation data disclosed by Roche in order to obtain a more robust data set.
Regarding claim 25, Li fails to disclose mapping the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location includes color coding the first center of rotation location differently than the second center of rotation location
Roche discloses wherein mapping the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location includes color coding the first center of rotation location differently than the second center of rotation location ([0143]: “The range of motion of the movement by the surgeon of the prosthetic joint can be indicated by a color scale region within the motion bar.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Li to include the color coding disclosed by Roche in order to improve visibility of the graphics displayed.
Regarding claim 28, Li fails to disclose the processing circuitry is configured to analyze the first data set and the second data set to identify a region of weakness or instability of the joint
Roche discloses wherein processing circuitry is configured to analyze the first data set and the second data set to identify a region of weakness or instability of the joint ([0103]: “generates quantitative measurement data targeted on clinical parameters that effect outcomes, impingement, stability, and range of motion of the joint.”, Fig 22B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Li to include the identification of weakness/instability in the joint disclosed by Roche in order to improve patient clinical outcomes.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wiedenhoefer et al. (US 20160302721 A1), hereinafter Wiedenhoefer.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the system of claim 5 (see above) but fails to disclose wherein the computer system includes a user interface, the user interface operable to receive a user input to selectively control one or more operations of the processing circuitry, including selectively generating the additional center of rotation location and storing the additional center of rotation location.
Roche discloses wherein a computer system includes a user interface (Fig 23), the user interface operable to receive a user input to selectively control one or more operations of the processing circuitry, including selectively generating the additional center of rotation location and storing the additional center of rotation location ([0136]: “an exit button 492, a LOG button 494, a zero button 496, a reset button 392, and a ROM button 470 are provided on GUI 380… exit button 492 will indicate when measurement device 154 is coupled to computer 162… enabling LOG button 494 logs data for 10 seconds… ROM button 370 initiates a range of motion test. ROM button 370 further initializes the IMU for the range of motion”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Li to include the user interface of Roche in order to improve user control over the method.
Li as modified Roche fails to disclose the computer system is a smartphone or mobile device.
Wiedenhoefer discloses a joint tracking system (abstract) wherein a computing device is a smartphone or mobile device ([0043]: “patient device 106 and the clinician device 108 can be any of a variety of devices, such as…mobile devices (for example, a cellular phone or smartphone,”) including a user interface ([0090]: “a user interface 1090 for the patient device or clinician device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the computer device with a user interface disclosed by Li as modified by Roche with the mobile device with a user interface disclosed by Wiedenhoefer for the predictable result of receiving user input.
Wiedenhoefer discloses a joint tracking system (abstract) wherein the computer system includes a user interface, the user interface operable to receive a user input to selectively control one or more operations of the processing circuitry, including selectively generating the additional center of rotation location and storing the additional center of rotation location.
Wiedenhoefer discloses a joint tracking system (abstract) wherein a computing device is a smartphone or mobile device ([0043]: “patient device 106 and the clinician device 108 can be any of a variety of devices, such as…mobile devices (for example, a cellular phone or smartphone,”) including a user interface ([0090]: “a user interface 1090 for the patient device or clinician device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the computer device with a user interface disclosed by Roche with the mobile device with a user interface disclosed by Wiedenhoefer for the predictable result of receiving user input.
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified by Roche and Wiedenhoefer discloses the system of claim 7, and Roche further discloses the processing circuitry is operable to, via a user input ([0136]), map the first, second, and additional center of rotation locations to display relative locations of the first, second, and additional center of rotation locations to user on the user interface ([0136]: " GUI 380 further includes a tracking function that displays dynamic motion of contact point 382 through the full range of motion to evaluate joint kinetics. ").
Regarding claim 23, Li discloses the method of claim 20 (see above), but fails to disclose wherein the computer system includes a user interface; and wherein activating circuitry operably coupled to the sensor device to periodically collect an additional data set at a time subsequent to the first time is accomplished via at least one user input to the user interface.
Roche discloses wherein a computer system includes a user interface (Fig 23), a user interface; and wherein activating circuitry operably coupled to the sensor device to periodically collect an additional data set at a time subsequent to the first time is accomplished via at least one user input to the user interface ([0136]: “an exit button 492, a LOG button 494, a zero button 496, a reset button 392, and a ROM button 470 are provided on GUI 380… exit button 492 will indicate when measurement device 154 is coupled to computer 162… enabling LOG button 494 logs data for 10 seconds… ROM button 370 initiates a range of motion test. ROM button 370 further initializes the IMU for the range of motion”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Li to include the user interface of Roche in order to provide more control over the system to the user.
Li as modified by Roche fails to disclose the computer system is a smartphone or mobile device.
Wiedenhoefer discloses a joint tracking system (abstract) wherein a computing device is a smartphone or mobile device ([0043]: “patient device 106 and the clinician device 108 can be any of a variety of devices, such as…mobile devices (for example, a cellular phone or smartphone,”) including a user interface ([0090]: “a user interface 1090 for the patient device or clinician device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the computer device with a user interface disclosed by Li as modified by Roche with the mobile device with a user interface disclosed by Wiedenhoefer for the predictable result of receiving user input.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roche in view of Bae et al. (KR 20210118606 A).
Regarding claim 24, Roche discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein mapping the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location includes calculating a linear distance between the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location.
Bae discloses mapping a finger joint (abstract) wherein mapping the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location includes calculating a linear distance between the first center of rotation location and the second center of rotation location (“Due to this, the distance d between the first center C1 and the second center C2 may be measured… the distance d between the first center C1 and the second center C2 is the distance deformed between the first sensor body 171 and the second sensor body 173 and the first sensor The distance between the main body 171 and the second center C2”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known method of mapping a first and second center of rotation disclosed by Roche with the method of mapping a first and second center of rotation by calculating distance as disclosed by Bae for the predictable result of tracking the motion of a joint.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Hunter (US 20170181825 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Li discloses the method of claim 29 but fails to disclose wherein the transmitter device is configured to be worn on a wrist of a patient
Hunter discloses an implant tracking system (abstract) further discloses wherein the transmitter device is configured to be worn on a wrist of a patient ([0083]: “a wrist-band”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the location of the transmitter from the waist as disclosed by Li (Fig 4) to the wrist as disclosed by Hunter in order to improve patient comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-8 and 17-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 17-21 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 of Remarks that the claims are similar to those found patent-eligible under the framework established in Thales. However, amended claims 1 and 17 do not recite a specific arrangement of sensors and further the model fitting is in itself an abstract mathematical concept. Additionally, a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, is considered a mental process per Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, construction of a best fit model using known techniques and obtaining information from generic, well-known sensors cannot be considered significantly more or improvement of a technical field. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights