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 June 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant holds the provisional double patenting rejection in abeyance until a decision of allowability has been reached. Examiner has updated the double patenting rejection in light of Applicant’s present amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been presented in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Pertinent art of reference has been provided in the conclusion which details a similar concept of using machine learning to process like sensor data obtained from other users.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 15, and 18 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 15, and 18 of Application No. 18/108,954. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 and dependent claims thereof are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
claims 1, 15, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/108,954 (hereinafter – the ‘954 application) in view of
Stein et al. (US 20140171754 A1) (hereinafter – Stein) in view of
Revie et al. (US 20200178898 A1) (hereinafter – Revie).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Re. Claims 1, 15, and 18: The ‘954 application teaches a joint implant comprising:
a first implant coupled to a first bone of a joint (claim 1, line 2; see relevant portions of claims 15 and 18); and
a second implant coupled to a second bone of the joint (claim 1, line 2; see relevant portions of claims 15 and 18),
the second implant including:
a first sensor configured to measure a first type of data (claim 1, line 8: load sensor; see relevant portions of claims 15 and 18); and
a processor operatively coupled to the first sensor (claim 1, line 10; see relevant portions of claims 15 and 18).
The limitations of “wherein the processor outputs the first type of data to a network, and
wherein one of the joint, the first implant or the second implant is determined to be in a first state based on a comparison of the first type of data to a set of predetermined values,” are taught by Stein (see prior art rejections below).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the ‘954 application to include outputting to a network and determining a state of the implant based on comparison to predetermined values as taught by Stein, the motivation being that doing so allows for communication of results without a wired connection and analysis of the data by an appropriate model (e.g., one which provides predetermined threshold values to determine a state of the implant).
The ’954 application as modified by Stein does not teach the invention wherein the predetermined values are adapted to change with the addition of new data.
Such an aspect is taught by Revie. Motivation to modify the ‘954 application as modified by Stein is identical to that of the prior art rejections below.
Each other independent claim is rejected analogously in light of the ‘954 application in light of Stein and Revie.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Stein et al. (US 20140171754 A1) (hereinafter – Stein) in view of
Revie et al. (US 20200178898 A1) (hereinafter – Revie).
Re. Claim 1: Stein teaches A joint implant comprising:
a first implant configured to be coupled to a first bone of a joint (Fig. 1: femoral prosthetic component 104; Fig. 28: one of the hip joint prosthetic components shown; see similar structures in Fig. 29); and
a second implant configured to be coupled to a second bone of the joint (Fig. 1: tibial prosthetic component 106; Fig. 27; Fig. 28: the other of the hip joint prosthetic components shown; see similar structures in Figs. 29, 31, 33, 38, 40),
the second implant including:
a first sensor configured to measure a first type of data (Paragraph 0061: “Tibial prosthetic component 106 can include a cavity or tray on the major surface that receives and retains sensor 100 during a measurement process;” see similar structures in cited figures above); and
a processor operatively coupled to the first sensor (Fig. 1: data communication to receiving station 110; Fig. 28 as described in Paragraph 0198: “The electronic circuitry 2812 can further include a power source, power management circuitry, conversion circuitry, digital logic, processors, multiple input/output circuitry, and communication circuitry;” Paragraph 0200: “Remote system 2818 includes a display 2820 configured to display the measurement data. Remote system 2818 can be a computer that further processes the measurement data;” see similar components in Figs. 29, 38, 41, 42);
wherein the processor outputs the first type of data to a network (Figs. 1, 28, 29, 38: data communication to receiving station or remote system 3802; Fig. 41: network 4126; Fig. 42: communication network 4200), and
wherein one of the joint, the first implant or the second implant is determined to be in a first state based on a comparison of the first type of data to a set of predetermined values (Paragraph 0099: “In a non-limiting example, a parameter such as applied force is measured by relating the measured phase and frequency to a known relationship between the parameter (e.g. force) and the material properties of the energy propagating medium;” Paragraph 0101: continuous wave mode operation monitors change in length of propagation structure and uses known length to force relationship; Paragraph 0127: pulse-echo operation monitors change in length of propagation structure and uses known length to force relationship; Paragraphs 0155, 0164, 0192, 0227: capacitance change in known manner to determine a change in force, pressure, or load; Paragraph 0231: known location of load pad on support surfaces identify where load is coupled; Paragraphs 0248-250: comparison of optical sensor data to known infection color data to assess infection; Paragraphs 0252-0253: measurement of turbidity against known values, previous values, or predetermined turbidity range to identify infection).
Stein does not teach the invention wherein the predetermined values are adapted to change with the addition of new data.
Revie teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring joint movement and conditions (Abstract). Revie teaches wherein the predetermined values indicative of a first or second state of a patient (i.e., neural network weights indicative of suitable orthopaedic performance or lack thereof) are adapted to change with the addition of new data, the new data including a plurality of data sets from a plurality of joint implants, each data set being associated with a respective diagnosis of a state, the predetermined values being modified based on the plurality of data sets and the respective associated diagnoses (Paragraph 0189: “One particularly suitable method for analysing and categorising the patient's orthopaedic performance would be to use a pattern recognition technique, such as one implemented by a neural network. Representations of successful and unsuccessful surgical procedures can be used as the trading set for the network and then the current's patient orthopaedic performance can be submitted to the neural network for analysis with the neural network determining whether the representation of the patient's performance corresponds to a successful or unsuccessful treatment. The determination of the network can then be used to generate the results which are output at step 452;” Claim 41: comprising a step of updating a neural network with orthopaedic performance data of the patient).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Stein to include the joint state monitoring and algorithm of Revie, the motivation that doing so allows for a method of quantitative assessment which is updateable to observations of new data.
Re. Claim 2: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the joint is a knee joint, the first implant is a femoral implant and the second implant is a tibial implant (Fig. 1).
Re. Claim 3: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 2. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the tibial implant includes any of
a pH sensor (Abstract: “The prosthetic component can include a… a pH sensor…”),
a temperature sensor (Abstract: “The prosthetic component can include a temperature sensor…”),
a Hall sensor,
a pressure sensor (at least: Paragraph 0058: “This relationship is used to generate accurate measurements of parameters such as distance, weight, strain, pressure, wear, vibration, viscosity, and density to name but a few;” Paragraph 0064: joint pressure visualization based on measured forces; Paragraph 0072: “As will be explained further hereinbelow, the sensing assembly 300 in one embodiment is part of a sensory device that measures a parameter such as force, pressure, or load;” Figs. 20, 26; Paragraphs 0140-0141),
an optical sensor (Abstract: “The prosthetic component can include… an optical sensor.”), and
a blood sensor (Paragraphs 0242, 0250: turbidity and color change can assess presence of blood in synovial fluid)
operatively coupled to the processor.
Re. Claim 4: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 3. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the tibial implant includes a tibial insert and a tibial stem (Fig. 1: tibial prosthetic component 106; Figs. 31, 33, 35, 38-40: tibial prosthetic component 3100 includes tibial insert 3116 and stem 3124), and
wherein the tibial insert is made of polyethylene (Paragraph 0223: “Insert 3116 fits into the tray of prosthetic component. The tray of prosthetic component 3100 can have one or more features for retaining insert 3116. Insert 3116 typically comprises a polymer material such as ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene”).
Re. Claim 5: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the processor outputs the data to an external source connected to the network (see citations of claim 1 – see additional external sources connected to networks identified), and
the joint implant further comprises a transmitter to transmit the first type of data to the external source (Paragraph 0063: “Data from sensor 100 is transmitted to a receiving station 110 via wired or wireless communications;” Examiner notes that this implies the existence of a transmitter to perform such a function).
Re. Claim 6: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Stein further teaches the invention further comprising a battery disposed within the second implant (Paragraph 0079: “A pulsed energy wave approach reduces power dissipation allowing for a temporary power source such as a battery or capacitor to power the system during the course of operation;” Paragraph 0193: “In one embodiment, a temporary power source such as a battery, capacitor, inductor, or other storage medium is located within insert 2700 to power the sensors and electronic circuitry 2704;” Paragraph 0205: “The electronic circuitry can include a power source such as a battery, inductive power source, super capacitor, or other storage medium”).
Re. Claim 8: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Stein further teaches the invention further comprising at least one of a second sensor configured to measure a second type of data (Fig. 37: optical sensors include LED 3708 and photo-diode array 3710 measure color and turbidity while load pads 3108 measure force/pressure/load and position thereof, as described in Paragraph 0243).
Re. Claim 9: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 8. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the joint implant includes a plurality of the first sensor and a plurality of the second sensor (see citation of claim 8: optical “sensors” (i.e., plural) and plurality of load pads).
Re. Claim 10: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 9. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the processor outputs the first and second types of data to the network (Paragraph 0257: “In a fourth step, the data sent by the prosthetic component can be analyzed. The data can be analyzed by the remote system. The data can also be sent to other equipment, devices, computers, or a database. The data can be combined with other information or data to create a clinical database related to a study of the joint or prosthetic system;” Figs. 41, 42).
Re. Claim 11: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Revie, in teaching further detail regarding the modification, further teaches the invention wherein the addition of new data includes the first type of data output by the processor of the joint implant (see modification in view of Revie – wherein the addition of new data includes the first type of data output by the processor of the joint implant (see citations of claim 1; Paragraph 0044: “The quantitative assessment can include a technique or techniques selected from the group comprising: fitting data derived from the detected positions; applying a statistical analysis to data derived from the detected positions; applying a pattern recognition process to data derived from the detected positions;” Paragraph 0055: “The computer control system can further comprises or have access to a database storing data relating to a previous assessment or assessments of the patient or of other patients. The database can further store data relating to previous assessments of other patients. The database can further store data relating model or theoretical orthopaedic performance, for example, of a bone, joint or implant;” Paragraph 0187: “In alternate embodiments, rather than comparing the patient's orthopaedic performance with their own prior orthopaedic performance, the patient's orthopaedic performance can be compared with a model orthopaedic performance or with the orthopaedic performance of another patient or other patients. For example, line 485 may represent the theoretical behaviour of an implant-implant or bone-bone separation, for perfectly positioned orthopaedic implants. Therefore at step 450, the analysis can be of a comparison of the representation of the patient's orthopaedic performance with a theoretical or model performance. In one embodiment, the goodness or fit of the representation of the patient's performance to the model performance can be obtained and the goodness of fit can be used as an orthopaedic performance assessment metric. The assessment metric can then be used by results process 452 by comparison with a threshold or cut off value in order to classify the patient's orthopaedic performance. For example if the goodness of fit is sufficiently low, the patient can be categorised as requiring corrective surgery or other action or treatment so as to ameliorate the problem”).
Re. Claim 12: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Revie, in teaching further detail regarding the modification, further teaches the invention wherein the addition of new data includes the data received from other joint implants (see citation of claim 11).
Re. Claim 13: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the joint implant is configured to initiate a warning when the joint implant is determined to be in the first state (Paragraph 0238: “Prosthetic joint 3100 can detect infection local to the joint, notify a doctor or healthcare provider, or take appropriate action in a timely manner”).
Re. Claim 14: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 11. Stein further teaches the invention wherein the first state is any one of inflamed, infected, or injured (Paragraphs 0248-250: comparison of optical sensor data to known infection color data to assess infection; Paragraphs 0252-0253: measurement of turbidity against known values, previous values, or predetermined turbidity range to identify infection).
Re. Claim 15: Stein teaches a joint implant comprising:
a first implant configured to be coupled to a first bone of a joint (Fig. 1: femoral prosthetic component 104; Fig. 28: one of the hip joint prosthetic components shown; see similar structures in Fig. 29); and
a second implant configured to be coupled to a second bone of the joint and contacting the first implant (Fig. 1: tibial prosthetic component 106; Fig. 27; Fig. 28: the other of the hip joint prosthetic components shown; see similar structures in Figs. 29, 31, 33, 38, 40),
the second implant including:
a first sensor configured to measure a first type of data (Paragraph 0061: “Tibial prosthetic component 106 can include a cavity or tray on the major surface that receives and retains sensor 100 during a measurement process;” see similar structures in cited figures above);
a second sensor configured to measure a second type of data (Fig. 37: optical sensors include LED 3708 and photo-diode array 3710 measure color and turbidity while load pads 3108 measure force/pressure/load and position thereof, as described in Paragraph 0243); and
a processor operatively coupled to the at least one of the first and second sensors (Fig. 1: data communication to receiving station 110; Fig. 28 as described in Paragraph 0198: “The electronic circuitry 2812 can further include a power source, power management circuitry, conversion circuitry, digital logic, processors, multiple input/output circuitry, and communication circuitry;” Paragraph 0200: “Remote system 2818 includes a display 2820 configured to display the measurement data. Remote system 2818 can be a computer that further processes the measurement data;” see similar components in Figs. 29, 38, 41, 42);
wherein the joint implant is configured to initiate an alert when the joint implant is determined to be in a first state (Paragraph 0238: “Prosthetic joint 3100 can detect infection local to the joint, notify a doctor or healthcare provider, or take appropriate action in a timely manner).
Stein teaches outputting joint implant sensor data (including first and second types) to a network to determine a state of the joint implant (Figs. 1, 28, 29, 38: data communication to receiving station or remote system 3802; Fig. 41: network 4126; Fig. 42: communication network 4200). However, Stein does not teach that the network is connected to other joint implants to derive a state of the joint implant.
Revie teaches wherein the joint implant is operatively coupled to a network of joint implants (see rejections of claims 1, 11, 12: a neural network of joint implants may be considered a “network of joint implants”); and
wherein a device operatively coupled to the processor analyzes an accumulation of the data received in the network from the other joint implants to define and update a set of predetermined values, the state of the joint implant being determined based on comparison of the first and second types of data to the set of predetermined values wherein the processor outputs the first and second types of data to the network to determine a state of the joint implant based on data received in the network from other joint implants (see rejections of claims 1, 11, 12: such limitations encompass actions carried out by an assessment via neural network operating on a database of other patient sensor information).
Motivation to modify Stein with the teachings of Revie is identical to that of claim 1.
Re. Claim 16: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 15. Revie, in teaching further detail regarding the modification, further teaches the invention wherein the data received from other joint implants includes data measured by a sensor (see rejections of claims 1, 11, 12; Paragraph 0034: “Wirelessly detecting the positions of the first and second markers after the procedure has been completed can be carried out on a plurality of separate occasions. The method can further comprise using the detected positions of the patient or of another patient or patients from a plurality of separate occasions to assess the orthopaedic performance of the patient”).
Re. Claim 17: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 16. Revie, in teaching further detail regarding the modification, further teaches the invention wherein the data received from the other joint implants includes determinations of a state of the respective joint or a state of the respective implant as determined by a user (see rejection of claim 16 – other patient data entails positions of markers to determine respective joint states).
Re. Claim 18: Stein teaches a system for detecting a state of a joint implant comprising: a joint implant including:
a first implant configured to be coupled to a first bone of a joint (Fig. 1: femoral prosthetic component 104; Fig. 28: one of the hip joint prosthetic components shown; see similar structures in Fig. 29);
a second implant configured to be coupled to a second bone of the joint and contacting the first implant (Fig. 1: tibial prosthetic component 106; Fig. 27; Fig. 28: the other of the hip joint prosthetic components shown; see similar structures in Figs. 29, 31, 33, 38, 40),
the second implant including:
at least one of a first sensor configured to measure a first type of data (Paragraph 0061: “Tibial prosthetic component 106 can include a cavity or tray on the major surface that receives and retains sensor 100 during a measurement process;” see similar structures in cited figures above); and
a processor operatively coupled to the at least one of the first sensor (Paragraph 0184: “In the present invention parameters are measured with an integrated wireless sensing module or device comprising an i) encapsulating structure that supports sensors and contacting surfaces and ii) an electronic assemblage that integrates a power supply, sensing elements, an accelerometer, antennas, electronic circuitry that controls and processes a measurement sequence, and wireless communication circuitry;” Fig. 28 as described in Paragraph 0198: “The electronic circuitry 2812 can further include a power source, power management circuitry, conversion circuitry, digital logic, processors, multiple input/output circuitry, and communication circuitry”); and
a device operatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 1: data communication to receiving station 110; Paragraph 0200: “Remote system 2818 includes a display 2820 configured to display the measurement data. Remote system 2818 can be a computer that further processes the measurement data;” see similar components in Figs. 29, 38, 41, 42; Paragraph 0260: system which executes the methods, which may be standalone or networked deployment).
While Stein teaches that a sensor implant communicatively coupled to a processor which is capable of interfacing with a network to communicate with another device (i.e., a general computer or server), Stein does not teach the device receiving data from a second source in order to process such data and output a state of the joint based on such data.
Revie teaches the device having a network adapted to receive data from the processor and at least a second source, process the data from the processor and the second source, and output a state of the joint based on the data from the processor and the data from the second source (see rejections of claims 1, 11, 12, 15; Paragraph 0055: “The computer control system can further comprises or have access to a database storing data relating to a previous assessment or assessments of the patient or of other patients. The database can further store data relating to previous assessments of other patients. The database can further store data relating model or theoretical orthopaedic performance, for example, of a bone, joint or implant;” Paragraph 0200: “Finally, CPU 502 optionally may be coupled to an external device such as a database or a computer or telecommunications network using an external connection as shown generally at 512. With such a connection, it is contemplated that the CPU might receive information from the network, or might output information to the network in the course of performing the method steps described herein”),
wherein the second source includes a plurality of data sets accumulated from a plurality of joint implants, each data set being associated with a respective diagnosis of a state, wherein the device outputs the state of the joint by analyzing the data from the processor in view of the plurality of data sets and the respective associated diagnoses (see rejections of claims 1, 11, 12, 15).
The citations of Revie above are related to Revie’s teaching of the use of a neural network formed from data from other patients in order to assess orthopaedic performance of a current patient. Thus, motivation to modify Stein with the teachings of Revie is identical to that of claim 1.
Re. Claim 19: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 18. Revie, in teaching further detail regarding the modification, further teaches the invention wherein the joint implant is a first joint implant, and wherein the second source includes a second joint implant including at least one of a first sensor configured to measure a first type of data (see rejections of claim 18 – second source contains data from other patients).
Re. Claim 20: Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 18. Revie, in teaching further detail regarding the modification, further teaches the invention wherein the second source includes a determination of a state of a joint based on data provided by sensors of a joint implant as determined by a user (Paragraph 0055: “The computer control system can further comprises or have access to a database storing data relating to a previous assessment or assessments of the patient or of other patients. The database can further store data relating to previous assessments of other patients;” Examiner notes that the term “assessments” entails either another user’s assessment or another user carrying out quantitative assessments as cited prior).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Stein et al. (US 20140171754 A1) (hereinafter – Stein) in view of
Revie et al. (US 20200178898 A1) (hereinafter – Revie) in further view of
Trousdale et al. (US 20200107945 A1) (hereinafter – Trousdale).
Re. Claim 7: Re. Stein as modified by Revie teaches the invention according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the joint is a shoulder joint, the first implant is a glenoid sphere and the second implant is a shoulder insert.
Trousdale teaches analogous art in the technology of sensing systems for prostheses (Abstract). Trousdale further teaches the invention wherein the joint is a shoulder joint, the first implant is a glenoid sphere and the second implant is a shoulder insert (Figs. 1, 2; Paragraphs 0077, 0216, 0217: referring to sensor positioning in second implant).
Stein already contemplates their invention being positioned in a shoulder joint (Paragraph 0062). The teachings of Trousdale are a suitable method of applying a joint implant having sensor(s) in a shoulder joint. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to include applying the joint implant of Stein as modified by Revie in a shoulder joint as taught by Trousdale, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements (Stein as modified by Revie: a joint implant having first and second parts and sensor(s) which may be applied to shoulder; Trousdale: teaching an analogous system having a suitable structure for implantation into a shoulder), and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately (forming a sensing implant), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soykan et al. (US 20200352441 A1) (hereinafter – Soykan).
Soykan teaches implantable medical devices for use in orthopedic implants (Paragraph 0028), wherein in machine learning may be applied to analyze patient data using data from a broader patient population (Paragraphs 0093, 0096-0102, 0122, 0129).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights