0DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s filing, received 08 June 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/012631, filed 08 January 2021
which claims benefit of 62/958,833, filed 09 January 2020.
Unless otherwise noted, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 09 January 2020.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the Specification received 08 June 2026.
Specification
The amendment to the Specification received 08 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 have been withdrawn in part and maintained in part in view of the amendment received 08 June 2026, as noted below.
The amendment did not completely address the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with regard to dependent claim 6. Therefore, the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with regard to dependent claim 6 are maintained in view of the amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are:
“a means for identifying…” in claim 6; and
“a means for calculating…” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses a corresponding structure for:
“a means for identifying…” in claim 6, at paras. [0130] & [0131] (e.g., processing component 6010 (Fig. 6) and multi-processor platform (Fig. 4)); and
“a means for calculating…” in claim 6, at para. [0130] (e.g., processing component 6010 (Fig. 6) and multi-processor platform (Fig. 4)).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment received 08 June 2026.
The amendment received 08 June 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, in view of the amendment.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation “or disapproval of the modified first image.” The specification provides support for ‘approval of the modified first image’ (e.g., para. [00112]), but does not provide support for the limitation “or disapproval of the modified first image.” Additionally, the specification does not contain the term ‘disapproval’ or suggest a step of not approving the modified first image, and thus, this newly added limitation appears to be a new scope not contemplated nor supported by the present specification.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejecting for depending from either of claims 1 or 9 and for failing to remedy the failure of the claim from which it depends to comply with the written description requirement.
Independent claims 1 and 9 further recite the limitation “multi-dimensional deformity parameters.” The specification provides support for multiple deformity parameters (e.g., para. [00114]), but does not provide support for the limitation “multi-dimensional deformity parameters.” Additionally, the specification does not contain the term ‘multi-dimensional’ and therefore, this newly added limitation appears to be a new scope not contemplated nor supported by the present specification.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejecting for depending from either of claims 1 or 9 and for failing to remedy the failure of the claim from which it depends to comply with the written description requirement.
Independent claims 1 and 9 further recite the limitation “automatically align the first bone segment and the second bone segment using the first and second reduction points.” The specification provides literal support for ‘the software may automatically, or through interaction from the user, align a second line through interconnection points on the second bone segment (or second plane on the second bone segment for 3D images) and the associated image segment with a first line through interconnection points on the first bone segment (or first plane on the first bone segment for 3D images) to cause the first line and the second line to be collinear (or to cause the first plane to be coplanar with the second plane for 3D images) (e.g., para. [0060]), however the specification does not provide support for the limitation “automatically align the first bone segment and the second bone segment using the first and second reduction points,” which is broader in scope than the literal support provided by the specification, and this newly added limitation appears to be a new scope not contemplated nor supported by the present specification.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejecting for depending from either of claims 1 or 9 and for failing to remedy the failure of the claim from which it depends to comply with the written description requirement.
Independent claims 1 and 9 further recite the limitation “generate treatment plan for treatment of the one or more bones using the multi-dimensional deformity parameters.” While the specification does mention that some simple deformities can be resolved acutely in clinic or in the operating room, other ailments require careful planning and more prolonged treatment (para. [0003]), the specification does not contain the term “treatment plan” or the term “plan” nor does the specification provide the term “generate treatment plan,” and therefore this newly added limitation appears to be a new scope not contemplated nor supported by the present specification.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are rejecting for depending from either of claims 1 or 9 and for failing to remedy the failure of the claim from which it depends to comply with the written description requirement.
The amendment received 08 June 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in view of the amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are indefinite for reciting “generate a modified first image, the modified first image includes collocation of the first and second reduction points and the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated first and second reduction points” because the previous limitation reciting “automatically align the first bone segment and the second bone segment using the first and second reduction points” appears to be achieving the same result, i.e., a modification (i.e., the same exact modification) of the first image displayed at step one of the claim, and therefore it is not clear as to how the two limitations differ. The limitation reciting “generate a modified first image, the modified first image includes collocation of the first and second reduction points and the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated first and second reduction points” is interpreted to mean generating a display of and/or output of the aligned first and second bone segments.
Claims 2-8 and 10-15 are indefinite for depending from either of claims 1 or 9 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of the claim from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 has been maintained with modification in view of the amendment received 08 June 2026, as noted below.
The rejection has been modified to incorporate the amended limitations.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Claim Interpretations
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation “automatically align the first bone segment and the second bone segment using the first and second reduction points.” The term ‘automatically’ is interpreted to mean that the limitation is executed by a processor.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation “receive a graphical input to the modified first image.” The term ‘graphical input’ is interpreted to mean entering data, commands, or interactions into a computer or system using visual elements and pointing actions, e.g., clicking icons, drawing shapes, or dragging sliders, rather than typing text-based commands.
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
The rejection of claims 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 1 in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment received 08 June 2026.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1-8 recite an apparatus to determine deformity parameters (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture); and claims 9-15 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus for performing the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
identify a first reduction point on the first bone segment and a second reduction point on the second bone segment, the first and second reduction points to represent a connection point between the first and second bone segments (i.e., mental processes, e.g., identify specific coordinate locations on the image);
align the first bone segment and the second bone segment using the first and second reduction points (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., pairing the reduction points of one fragment with the corresponding points of an adjacent fragment at least require calculating the geometric distance between two distinct points in 3D space (i.e., Euclidean Geometry));
determine multi-dimensional deformity parameters based on alignment of the first bone segment and the second bone segment in the modified first image, wherein the multi-dimensional deformity parameters are determined for each of the first and second reduction points (i.e., mental processes, e.g., evaluating and determining values of parameters); and
generate treatment plan for treatment of the one or more bones using the multi-dimensional deformity parameters (e.g., mental processes, e.g., evaluating data to create a plan).
Independent claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the abstract ideas recited by independent claim 1, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 2 further recites:
identify a third reduction point on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes); and
identify a fourth reduction point on the second bone segment, the third and fourth reduction points to represent a second connection point between the first and second bone segments (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 3 further recites:
resolve a conflict between a deformity parameter common to the modified first image and the modified second image (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 4 further recites:
the deformity parameter common to the modified first image and the modified second image comprises an axial translation (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 5 further recites:
identify a third point on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes);
identify a fourth point on the second bone segment, the third and fourth points to represent a second interconnection point between the first and second bone segments on the first image (i.e., mental processes);
determine a cut line between the first bone segment and the second bone segment based on a line between the second reduction point and the fourth point (i.e., mental processes); and
create divided images from the first image, the divided images to include a first divided image with the first bone segment and a second divided image with the second bone segment (i.e., mental processes), wherein
the divided images can be aligned to collocate the first and second reduction points and one or both of the first divided image and the second divided image are angled to make dividing lines are colinear (i.e., mental processes),
the dividing lines are defined between the reduction points and additional points or the dividing lines are directly drawn on the image, one dividing line per bone segment (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 6 further recites:
identify a first reduction point on the first bone segment and a second reduction point on the second bone segment comprises identifying two points on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes);
calculating a first relative point relative to one or both of the two points on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts);
identifying two points on the second bone segment (i.e., mental processes); and
calculating a second relative point relative to one or both of the two points on the second bone segment (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts), wherein
the first relative point on the first bone segment is the first reduction point and the second relative point on the second bone segment is the second reduction point (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 7 further recites:
the first bone segment and the second bone segment comprise two segments of a fractured or osteotomized bone (i.e., mental processes); and
a coordinate system of the first image is established by a bone axis overlaid on the first image and image orientation requirements for the first image (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 8 further recites:
identify a cut line to separate the first image into a first portion comprising the first bone segment and a second portion comprising the second bone segment (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 10 further recites:
identify a third reduction point on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes); and
identify a fourth reduction point on the second bone segment, the third and fourth reduction points to represent a second connection point between the first and second bone segments (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 11 further recites:
resolve a conflict between a deformity parameter common to the modified first image and the modified second image (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 12 further recites:
modify image segments of the first image relative to the reduction points (i.e., mental processes), wherein
the image segments include a first image segment with the first bone segment and the first reduction point and a second image segment with the second bone segment and the second reduction point (i.e., mental processes), wherein
modifications to the image segments translate the first and second reduction points relative to one another (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 13 further recites:
identify a third point on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes);
identify a fourth point on the second bone segment, the third and fourth points to represent a second interconnection point between the first and second bone segments on the first image (i.e., mental processes); and
determine a cut line between the first bone segment and the second bone segment based on a line between the second reduction point and the fourth point (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 14 further recites:
identification of two points on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes);
calculation of the midpoint between the two points on the first bone segment (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts);
identification of two points on the second bone segment (i.e., mental processes); and
calculation of the midpoint between the two points on the second bone segment, wherein the midpoint between the two points on the first bone segment is the first reduction point and the midpoint between the two points on the second bone segment is the second reduction point (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts).
Dependent claim 15 further recites:
the first bone segment and the second bone segment comprise two segments of a fractured or osteotomized bone (i.e., mental processes).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., identifying a first reduction point on the first bone segment and a second reduction point on the second bone segment, the first and second reduction points to represent a connection point between the first and second bone segments), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., calculation of the midpoint between the two points on the second bone segment, wherein the midpoint between the two points on the first bone segment is the first reduction point and the midpoint between the two points on the second bone segment is the second reduction point) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 3, 7, 8, 14, and 15 do not further recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 1 include:
an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory storage media;
display a first image of a first bone segment and a second bone segment of one or more bones (i.e., display data);
display and/or output a modified first image, the modified first image includes collocation of the first and second reduction points and the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated first and second reduction points (i.e., display and/or output data); and
receive a graphical input to the modified first image representing at least one of: an approval of the modified first image or disapproval of the modified first image (i.e., receive data).
The additional elements in independent claim 9 include:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium;
processing circuitry;
display a first image of a first bone segment and a second bone segment of one or more bones (i.e., displaying data);
display and/or output a modified first image, the modified first image includes collocation of the first and second reduction points and the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated first and second reduction points (i.e., display and/or output data); and
receive a graphical input to the modified first image representing at least one of: an approval of the modified first image or disapproval of the modified first image (i.e., receive data).
The additional elements in dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 10-13 include:
display a second image of the first bone segment and the second bone segment, the second image illustrating the first bone segment and the second bone segment at a perspective that is different from a perspective of the first image (i.e., display data) (claim 2);
display a modified second image, the modified second image to collocate the third and fourth reduction points, the modified second image to display the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated third and fourth reduction points (i.e., display data) (claim 2);
receive an indication, the indication representing approval of the modified second image to determine the deformity parameters (i.e., receive data) (claim 2);
input from a user (i.e., data input) (claim 5);
a means for identifying (i.e., a computer platform (e.g., 6000 (FIG. 6), comprising a processing component 6010 (FIG. 6)) (claim 6);
a means for calculating (i.e., a computer platform (e.g., 6000 (FIG. 6), comprising a processing component 6010 (FIG. 6)) (claim 6);
processing circuitry (claims 10-13);
display a second image of the first bone segment and the second bone segment, the second image illustrating the first bone segment and the second bone segment at a perspective that is different from a perspective of the first image (i.e., display data) (claim 10);
display a modified second image, the modified second image to collocate the third and fourth reduction points, the modified second image to display the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated third and fourth reduction points (i.e., display data) (claim 10); and
receive an indication, the indication representing approval of the modified second image to determine the deformity parameters (i.e., receive data) (claim 10).
The additional elements of an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory storage media (claim 1); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 9); and a processing circuitry (claims 9-13); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional element of receive data (claims 1, 2, 9, and 10); is merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of data input by a user (claim 5); is merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of displaying and/or outputting data (claims 1, 2, 9, and 10) is merely a pre-solution and/or post-solution activity – a nominal addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-15 have been considered as a whole, (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 3, 7, 8, 14, and 15 do not further recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 10-13 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory storage media (claim 1); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 9); a processing circuitry (claims 9-13); receive data (claims 1, 2, 9, and 10); data input by a user (claim 5); and displaying and/or outputting data (claims 1, 2, 9, and 10); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
Therefore, when taken alone (i.e., individually), all additional elements in claims 1-15 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-15 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 08 June 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 11 of the Remarks that the Applicant traverses the rejection, and provides a recitation of amended claim 1. The Application acknowledges that Step 1 of the eligibility analysis has been satisfied (Remarks, page 12, para. 1) and proceeds to Step 2A (paras. 2-3) and states that contrary to the conclusory remarks made in the Office action (mailed 12 March 2026), claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for at least the reason that the claim’s embodiments are not directed to a patent-eligible concept or judicial exception, and further states that claim 1 does not fall within the enumerated abstract groupings specified by the USPTO in the 2019 guidance, and further states that additionally, under Prong Two, claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. The Applicant further states on page 12 (bottom) that under Prong One, the claimed subject matter is neither directed to mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, or mental processes. The Applicant further states on page 13 (para. 1) that a human mind is not equipped to execute the combination of steps recited in claim 1, and further states (para. 2) that it is entirely unclear how a human mind is able to operate a computing system that performs the operations recited in claim 1, and further states that a human mind is unable to perform the particular claim 1 limitations shown on page 13, in particular further stating that graphics processing performed by specially programmed graphics processing unit is simply not within the capabilities of a human mind. The Applicant further states on page 14 (para. 1) that the combination of the above steps along with all the underlying multiple-purpose programmable hardware and software components/networks etc. are entirely outside the realm of a human brain. The Applicant further states (para. 1) that none of the limitations or their combination involve mathematical concepts, and hence, the Examiner’s assertion is improper. The Applicant further states (para. 2) that the current subject matter, as recited in claim 1, presents a technical improvement to technologies associated with treatment of fractured bones by generating more accurate treatment plans through intensive graphical analysis of such fractured bones, and thus, claim 1 does not recite a mental process or mathematical concepts. The Applicant further states (para. 3) that accordingly, the Office’s rejection fails to meet the Office’s burden to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or a mathematical concept. The Applicant further states (para. 4) that clearly, claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, and in particular, the current subject matter, as recited in claim 1, is directed to improvement of a functioning of a computer as well as solving technical problems associated with generation of accurate treatment plans for treatment of fractures. The Applicant further states on page 15 (paras. 1-2) that the current subject matter constitutes an improvement to the technical field of orthopedic treatments of fractures and goes beyond mere abstract idea, and as such, claim 1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea. The Applicant further states (para. 3) that similar to claim 1 of Ancora Technologies, the claims in the present application address a technological problem using computing, and in particular, graphics-intensive processing, components to improve generation of accurate treatment plans that ensure proper alignment of fractured bone segments. The Applicant further states on page 16 (para. 2) that accordingly, the Office’s rejection fails to meet the Office’s burden to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or a mathematical concept.
These arguments/remarks are not persuasive, because first, the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 presented a detailed eligibility analysis in accordance with MPEP 2106, and thus met the burden of establishing a prima facie case of ineligibility. Second, claims can recite judicial exceptions even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Third, the MPEP at 2106.04(a) states that examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiners believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitation(s) fall within at last one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. As noted in the rejection above at Eligibility Step 2A Prong One, claim limitations are identified that recite abstract ideas from one or both of the judicial exception groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes. Fourth, the examples of mental processes at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) para. 2 (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions) are not limiting, however, each of the examples, individually or in combination, are applicable to particular limitations recited in the instant claims, as noted and discussed in the above rejection. Fifth, it is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula or equation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)). Sixth, evaluating whether judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application comprises: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I at 2106.04(d) of the MPEP, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). As noted in the rejection above, when all limitations in claims 1-15 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), they are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). In other words, amended claim 1 recites particular steps of analyzing and modifying image data, and generates a result that is used to generate a treatment plan; however, these steps comprise the judicial exceptions identified at Step 2A Prong One, and therefore the claim does not recite any meaningful limitation (i.e., an additional element) that either applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exceptions in a meaningful manner (MPEP 2104.04(d)). Seventh, regarding the Applicant’s attempt at analogizing the instant claims to claim 1 of Ancora Technologies, it is noted that the fact pattern of the instant claims are not analogous to a method of restricting software operation within a license for use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of a BIOS of a computer, and a volatile memory area. It is further noted that claim 1 of Ancora Technologies was determined to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer, however, instant claim 1 recites a method that results in a treatment plan for treatment of one or more bones, which at most is a purported improvement to the abstract idea of image analysis, and not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field.
The Applicant states on page 16 (para. 3) of the Remarks that even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 recites a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One, the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two. The Applicant further points to the 2019 PEG (paras. 4-5 in Remarks) and states on page 17 (para. 1) that claim 1 embodies at least on practical application of the invention, i.e., an ability to provide orthopedic treatment so that accuracy and outcomes of treatment plans can be greatly improved (Applicant points to para. [0005] in the specification). The Applicant further points to the 2019 PEG and the discussion therein of claims 2 and 4 of Example 45. The Applicant further provides the limitations of amended claim 1 on page 18 of the Remarks, and further states on page 18 (bottom) that the current subject matter allows, through the above graphical processing, to improve accuracy and outcomes of treatment plans without specialized knowledge in order to properly identify and place the axes and corresponding points of the deformed bone segments, and further states on page 19, that similar to claims 2 and 4 of Example 45 of the 2019 PEG, the currently pending claim 1 satisfies at least Step 2A Prong 2 requirements, and as such, is not directed to a judicial exception. The Applicant further states that therefore, the Examiner’s rejection fails to meet the Office’s burden to establish a prima facie case that the subject matter of claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concepts, or a judicial exception not integrated into a practical application.
These arguments/remarks are not persuasive, at least because first, the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 presented a detailed eligibility analysis in accordance with MPEP 2106, and thus met the burden of establishing a prima facie case of ineligibility. Second, evaluating whether judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application comprises: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I at 2106.04(d) of the MPEP, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). As noted in the rejection above, when all limitations in claims 1-15 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), they are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). In other words, amended claim 1 recites particular steps of analyzing and modifying image data, and generates a result that is used to generate a treatment plan; however, these steps comprise the judicial exceptions identified at Step 2A Prong One, and therefore the claim does not recite any meaningful limitation (i.e., an additional element) that either applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exceptions in a meaningful manner (MPEP 2104.04(d)). Third, the instant claims are not analogous to the claims in hypothetical Example 45 because the instant claims do not recite a controller for an injection molding apparatus having a mold defining a cavity for receiving uncured polyurethane that is heated to form a molded article during a cycle of operation of the apparatus. Example 45 considers a hypothetical controller for an injection molding apparatus, and is only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis performed using MPEP 2106, and of the particular issues noted in the Example. Example 45 should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth in the Example's claim, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as evidenced in the rejection of the instant claims above. In particular, Example 45 recites additional elements that either apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a meaningful manner, as discussed in the hypothetical analyses of hypothetical claims 2 and 4. While the exemplified analysis of Example 45 concludes that claims 2 and 4 are eligible, this conclusion is determined from the particular fact pattern of the hypothetical claimed apparatus, and should not be generalized as an axiom that claim limitations reciting other types of apparatuses are likewise eligible at Step 2A Prong Two.
The Applicant states on page 19 (para. 3) of the Remarks that claim 1 satisfies Step 2B, and that even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under part 2A of the interim guidance, claim 1 recites significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Applicant points to the 2019 PEG with regard to a Step 2B rejection, and states that a Step 2B rejection, and further summarizes steps of the eligibility analysis at Steps 2A Prongs One and Two and Step 2B according the MPEP at 2106. The Applicant further states on page 20 (para. 2) that the ordered combination of elements of claim 1 transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. The Applicant further states (para. 3) that in the present application, elements of claim 1 are not well-understood, routine or conventional, and in particular, that the combination of elements recited in claim 1 is not well-understood, routine or conventional, and further states that no admission that the combination of these elements (or each of the elements separately) is well-understood, routine or conventional. The Applicant reiterates that the combination of functionalities recited in claim 1 and performed by the structural components recited therein are clearly not well-understood, routine or conventional and therefore, the Office action fails to meet its burden under Step 2B and MPEP 2106.
These arguments are not persuasive, at least because, first, the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 presented a detailed eligibility analysis in accordance with MPEP 2106, and thus met the burden of establishing a prima facie case of ineligibility. Second, a conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, which comprises steps of: (1) carrying over the identification of any additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; (2) carrying over the conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h); (3) re-evaluating any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and (4) evaluating whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). As noted in the rejection above, when all additional elements in claims 1-15 have been evaluated individually and in an ordered combination at Eligibility Step 2B, they are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant’s amendment received 08 June 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabczynski et al. in view of Buschbaum et al. in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026 has been maintained in view of the amendment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabczynski et al. (EP 3421001, “Transformation determination for anatomically aligning fragments of a broken bone”, as cited in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026) in view of Buschbaum et al. (“Computer-assisted fracture reduction: a new approach for repositioning femoral fractures and planning reduction paths.” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery (IJCARS), (2015), Vol. 10:149-159, as cited in the Office action mailed 12 March 2026).
Independent claims 1 and 9 broadly encompass an apparatus and computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for displaying an image of first and second segments of a fractured bone, identifying a reduction point on each segment of the fractured bone, displaying a modified image showing the first and second bone fragments aligned in accordance with the identified reduction points, and receiving an indication representing approval of the modified image to determine deformity parameters.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 further define the steps used to align the first and second bone fragments, in particular, by identifying additional reduction points on each fragment using different perspective of the bone fragments.
Sabczynski et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for determining a transformation for anatomically aligning fragments of a broken bone (para. [0009]).
Buschbaum et al. teaches a computer-assisted fracture reduction using a virtual environment which repositions the fracture fragments automatically and provides the ability to plan reduction paths (Abstract).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Sabczynski et al. shows a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium, the computer readable medium having computer readable code being configured such that, on execution by a processor, the processor is caused to perform the method for determining a transformation for anatomically aligning fragments of a broken bone (para. [0017]); an apparatus for determining a transformation for anatomically aligning fragments of a broken bone, the apparatus comprising a processor configured to: acquire an image of a broken bone of a subject, wherein the bone is broken into two or more fragments; acquire a model of a corresponding unbroken bone and at least one parameter defining one or more deformations to the model that are permitted when fitting portions of the model of the unbroken bone to corresponding fragments of the broken bone based on the at least one parameter; and determine a transformation that anatomically aligns the fragments of the broken bone with the corresponding portions of the model (para. [0018]); at least on user interface to render (or output or display) the images (para. [0028]); the user interface may be configured to receive a user input (para. [0028]); the fitting of portions of the model of the unbroken bone to corresponding fragments of the broken bone can comprise dividing (or segmenting) the model of the unbroken bone into the portions that correspond to the fragments of the broken bone in the image, and in this way, portions of the model of the unbroken bone can be fitted to different fragments of the broken bone in the image without overlap (para. [0047]); selecting the optimally fitting deformed model (para. [0048]); aligning the fragments of the broken bone with the corresponding portion of the model, which may comprise a translation of the fragments of the broken bone, a rotation of the broken bone, or a combination of a translation of the fragments of the broken bone and a rotation of the broken bone (para. [0056]).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Sabczynski et al. does not show identifying reduction points on the first and second fragments that represent a connection point between the fragments; or collocating the first and second reduction points.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Buschbaum et al. shows assignment of matching points on osseous fragments and comparing generated fracture lines to calculate a desired target position (Abstract: Methods; Fig. 2; and Fig. 3). Buschbaum et al. further shows an algorithm for determining when an optimum number of best matching points is reached (page 153, col. 1, para. 2) (i.e., an indication of approval of the desired target position).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Sabczynski et al. by incorporating methods for virtually aligning reduction points between fractured bone segments, as shown by Buschbaum et al. and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Sabczynski et al. with the methods of Buschbaum et al., because Sabczynski et al. shows a method and system for aligning fragments to a reference model using deformity parameters and Buschbaum et al. shows methods for aligning reduction points along the fracture lines of the fragments. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Sabczynski et al. and Buschbaum et al. disclose methods for computer-assisted fracture reduction.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 8, 13, and 15, Sabczynski et al. further shows the bone is broken into two or more fragments (Abstract); and dividing (or segmenting) the reference model (i.e., the unbroken bone) along a corresponding surface so that portions of the model of the unbroken bone can be fitted to different fragments of the broken bone in the image without overlapping (para. [0047]).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 8, and 13, Sabczynski et al. does not show segmenting (dividing or cutting) the fragments of the broken bone from one another.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 8, and 13, Buschbaum et al. further shows segmenting the bone fragments from a CT scan, and creating virtual models (page 157, col. 2, para. 4).
Therefore, it would have been further prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Sabczynski et al. by incorporating methods for virtually segmenting bone fragments into virtual models, as shown by Buschbaum et al. and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Sabczynski et al. with the methods of Buschbaum et al., because Sabczynski et al. shows segmenting a reference model to accommodate alignment of bone fragments to the model and Buschbaum et al. shows methods for segmenting bone fragments to accommodate repositioning the fragments to oneanother. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Sabczynski et al. and Buschbaum et al. disclose methods for computer-assisted fracture reduction between bone fragments.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10-12, and 14, Buschbaum et al. further shows that the method reduces the fracture automatically by reconstructing the fracture lines of the fracture surface by computing the surface curvatures of the triangulated models which were created from CT scans, and from which crest lines were generated in the area of highly curved fracture edges, and these fracture lines consist of particular characteristic points, with geometrical features (i.e., deformities), which represent almost completely the contour of the fracture edges, and by using the properties of the surfaces at the fracture lines, matching points are assigned and subsequently used to calculate the exact transformation, thereby repositioning the two fragments (page 157, col. 1, para. 1).
Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 08 June 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 21 (as filed) of the Remarks that the Applicant traverses the rejection, and provides a summary of the teachings of the Sabczynski reference and the Buschbaum reference. The Applicant states on page 22 (para. 1) that Sabczynski, Buschbaum, and/or their combination fail to disclose or suggest a processor that is configured to “display a first image of a first bone segment and a second bone segment of one or more bones,” “identify a first reduction point on the first bone segment and a second reduction point on the second bone segment, the first and second reduction points represent a connection point between the first and second bone segments,” “automatically align the first bone segment and the second bone segment using the first and second reduction points,” “generate a modified first image, the modified first image includes collocation of the first and second reduction points and the first bone segment connected to the second bone segment at the collocated first and second reduction points,” and “receive a graphical input to the modified first image representing at least one of: an approval of the modified first image or disapproval of the modified first image,” “determine multi-dimensional deformity parameters based on alignment of the first bone segment and the second bone segment in the modified first image, wherein the multi-dimensional deformity parameters are determined for each of the first and second reduction points,” and “generate treatment plan for treatment of the one or more bones using the multi-dimensional deformity parameters,” as recited in the amended claim 1. The Applicant further states that in particular, the references and/or their combination fail to disclose or suggest use of reduction points for automatic alignment of bone segments and continuous determination of deformity parameters for each reduction point, and instead, Sabczynski appears to use a predetermined model to align bone segments, which is different from the recited interactive bone alignment technique that relies on reduction points and user input to generate a treatment plan. The Applicant further states that Buschbaum is likewise deficient, and while it refers to reduction, it, similar to Sabczynski, uses a preset model, which it calls a reference coordinate system, and moreover, it appears to require selection of specific curved edges prior to determination of any reduction points, which is different from how reduction points are identified in the amended claim 1. The Applicant further states that, hence, Sabczynski, Buschbaum, and/or their combination fail to disclose or suggest all elements of claim 1 and do not render claim 1 obvious, and as such, the rejection of claim 1 is traversed and should be withdrawn.
These arguments are not persuasive, at least because, first, Sabczynski shows a computer-implemented method for determining a transformation for anatomically aligning fragments of a broken bone that can be partially or fully automated, and Buschbaum likewise shows that automated fracture reduction was achieved using a system based on preoperative CT scans, and the automated system provides a clinically feasible basis for planning optimal reduction paths that may be augmented by further computer- or robot-assisted applications (Abstract). Second, Sabczynski shows a computer-implement method with a user interface that enables a user of the apparatus to provide a user input, and interact with and/or control the apparatus (para. [0029]). Third, at least Buschbaum shows a method which allows planning reduction paths for each fracture, and that by varying the sequences of movements or movement patterns, paths can easily be planned, and thus, it is possible to plan different paths for each fracture (page 155, col. 2, para. 2). Fourth, Sabczynski at least shows that different positions of the one or more control points of the model in the parameter space can correspond to different bone shapes (para. [0043]). Fifth, while the combination of Sabczynski and Buschbaum does not show that exact claim limitations recited by amended claim 1, it nonetheless would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Sabczynski et al. by incorporating methods for virtually aligning reduction points between fractured bone segments, as shown by Buschbaum et al. and discussed above, to arrive at the instant claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/S.W.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights