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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-22, 31-41, 44 and 51-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al (11,553,969) in view of Fanson et al (2021/0121237).
Regarding claim 1, Lang et al disclose a method comprising:
detecting, using depth information captured by a depth camera of an augmented reality headset and image information captured by a video camera of the augmented reality headset (the sensors or camera attached or integrated into the HMD can include an image capture system, a video capture system, a depth camera – col.32, ll.53-57), one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer (the data collected by sensors or cameras is used for positional tracking as well as other purposes, e.g., image recording or spatial mapping - col.55, ll.23-30; landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained – col.176, ll.58-62) and fiducials associated with a marker affixed to at least one of a femur or a tibia (the image and/or video capture system…monitor the position, and/or orientation and/or alignment…of the optical marker(s) attached to the tibia in relationship with…one or more femoral optical markers – col.84, ll.48-61);
displaying an overlay of the detected one or more positions of knee features (virtual data of the patient can be projected superimposed onto live data of the patient for each individual viewer – col.38, ll.11-14);
generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features (femoral or tibial component impacting during knee replacement…update or adjust or modify a virtual surgical plan – col.94, ll.62-63; col.95, ll.9-37; a virtual plane relative to one or more anatomic structures of the joint – col.188, ll.62-63);
determining an actual resection plane based on a view of a resection guide having a marker inserted in the guide (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28); and
providing, guidance, using the augmented reality headset, to position the guide to align the actual resection plane with the planned resection plane (head mounted display – col.230, ll.50-54).
Lang et al fail to explicitly disclose receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features; and generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more planning inputs.
However, Fanson et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features (the location of the resection plane along the mechanical axis model may be adjustable in response to user input thereby to adjust the desired position and orientation of the resection plane in the augmented reality overlay – [0013]); and generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more planning inputs ([0013]; the surgical planning module may facilitate real-time changes to the surgical plan and the augmented reality overlay of the surgical plan may be updated accordingly – [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the planned resection plane and one or more positions of the knee anatomical features of Lang et al with receiving one or more planning inputs from a user and generating a planned resection plane based on the one or more planning inputs of Fanson et al as it would provide user input in optimizing the knee replacement procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Lang et al disclose further comprising: prompting to identify the anatomical features (a surgeon can identify select anatomic landmarks on virtual data – col.66, 36-39); wherein the anatomical features includes at least one of a medial or lateral epicondyles (col.66, l.58), an anterior cortex (col.67, l.44-45), or posterior or distal medial or lateral condyle surfaces (col.178, ll.15-30).
Regarding claim 3, Lang et al disclose comprising computing a level of the planned resection plane based on the anatomical features (the virtual surgical guide, e.g., a virtual plane, can be at a predetermined position, predetermined orientation and/or predetermined position and/or orientation…for an intended bone cute for an implant component – col.187, ll.22-28).
Regarding claim 4, Lang et al disclose wherein generating a planned resection plane comprises: calculating metrics, the metrics including at least one of varus or valgus alignment, flexion alignment; and wherein providing the guidance includes visualizing the calculated metrics (col.230, l.65-col.231, l.4).
Regarding claim 13, Lang et al disclose wherein the knee anatomical features comprise tibial proximal (marker attached to a proximal tibia – col.85, ll.21-22), wherein generating a planned resection plane further comprises calculating a tibial axis being independent of the femur and being away from a femoral knee center, and wherein providing the guidance includes visualizing the tibial axis (tibial axis has been determined or estimated, a virtual surgical plan with tibial resection – col.71, ll.36-39).
Regarding claim 14, Lang et al disclose wherein generating the planned resection plane comprises: calculating at least one of gap metrics (col.231, ll.15-16); a distal femoral resection (col.88, ll.15-18); a flexion angle (col.71, ll.23-27).
Regarding claim 15, Lang et al disclose wherein calculating the metrics for femoral or tibial implant comprises: calculating at least one of angles and distances to place the implant relative to at least one of the one or more anatomical features; and displaying the at least one of the angels and distances (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28).
Regarding claim 16, Lang et al disclose wherein the gap metrics comprise one of flexion/extension gap, and wherein calculating the gap metrics comprises visualizing the gap metrics through a display (col. 231, ll.12-16).
Regarding claim 17, Lang et al disclose wherein calculating the femoral implant comprises: adjusting translation/rotation of a femoral component while visualizing resection planes (distance, offset, angular offset or overall difference in coordinates – col.65, ll.18-21).
Regarding claim 18, Lang et al disclose wherein calculating the distal femur resection comprises: planning distal resection; and providing visual guidance of the resection guide to the planned distal resection (the virtual surgical guide corresponds to a physical distal femoral guide and the predetermined position – col.15, ll.8-11).
Regarding claim 19, Lang et al disclose a system comprising:
a pointer configured to indicate one or more anatomical points (landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained using, for example, a pointer – col.176, ll.58-62);
an augmented reality device configured to:
detect, using depth information captured by a depth camera of an augmented reality headset and image information captured by a video camera of the augmented reality headset (the sensors or camera attached or integrated into the HMD can include an image capture system, a video capture system, a depth camera – col.32, ll.53-57), one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer (the data collected by sensors or cameras is used for positional tracking as well as other purposes, e.g., image recording or spatial mapping - col.55, ll.23-30; landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained – col.176, ll.58-62) and fiducials associated with a marker affixed to at least one of a femur or a tibia (the image and/or video capture system…monitor the position, and/or orientation and/or alignment…of the optical marker(s) attached to the tibia in relationship with…one or more femoral optical markers – col.84, ll.48-61);
generate a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features (femoral or tibial component impacting during knee replacement…update or adjust or modify a virtual surgical plan – col.94, ll.62-63; col.95, ll.9-37; a virtual plane relative to one or more anatomic structures of the joint – col.188, ll.62-63);
determine an actual resection plane based on a view of a resection guide having a marker inserted in the guide (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28); and
provide, guidance, using an augmented reality headset, to position the guide to align the actual resection plane with the planned resection plane (head mounted display – col.230, ll.50-54).
Lang et al fail to explicitly disclose receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features; and generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more planning inputs.
However, Fanson et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features (the location of the resection plane along the mechanical axis model may be adjustable in response to user input thereby to adjust the desired position and orientation of the resection plane in the augmented reality overlay – [0013]); and generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more planning inputs ([0013]; the surgical planning module may facilitate real-time changes to the surgical plan and the augmented reality overlay of the surgical plan may be updated accordingly – [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the planned resection plane and one or more positions of the knee anatomical features of Lang et al with receiving one or more planning inputs from a user and generating a planned resection plane based on the one or more planning inputs of Fanson et al as it would provide user input in optimizing the knee replacement procedure.
Regarding claim 20, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to prompt to identify the anatomical features (a surgeon can identify select anatomic landmarks on virtual data – col.66, 36-39); wherein the anatomical features includes at least one of a medial or lateral epicondyles (col.66, l.58), an anterior cortex (col.67, l.44-45), or posterior or distal medial or lateral condyle surfaces (col.178, ll.15-30).
Regarding claim 21, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to compute a level of the planned resection plane based on the anatomical features (the virtual surgical guide, e.g., a virtual plane, can be at a predetermined position, predetermined orientation and/or predetermined position and/or orientation…for an intended bone cute for an implant component – col.187, ll.22-28).
Regarding claim 22, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to: calculate metrics, the metrics including at least one of varus or valgus alignment, flexion alignment; and wherein providing the guidance includes visualizing the calculated metrics (col.230, l.65-col.231, l.4).
Regarding claim 31, Lang et al disclose wherein the anatomical features comprise tibial proximal (marker attached to a proximal tibia – col.85, ll.21-22), and wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to: calculate a tibial axis being independent of the femur and being away from a femoral knee center; and visualize the tibial axis (tibial axis has been determined or estimated, a virtual surgical plan with tibial resection – col.71, ll.36-39).
Regarding claim 32, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to calculate at least one of gap metrics (col.231, ll.15-16); a distal femoral resection (col.88, ll.15-18); a flexion angle (col.71, ll.23-27).
Regarding claim 33, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to: calculate at least one of angles and distances to place the implant relative to at least one of the one or more anatomical features; and display the at least one of the angels and distances (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28).
Regarding claim 34, Lang et al disclose wherein the gap metrics comprise one of flexion/extension gap, and wherein calculating the gap metrics comprises visualizing the gap metrics through a display (col. 231, ll.12-16).
Regarding claim 35, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to adjust translation/rotation of a femoral component while visualizing resection planes (distance, offset, angular offset or overall difference in coordinates – col.65, ll.18-21).
Regarding claim 36, Lang et al disclose wherein the augmented reality device is further configured to: plan distal resection; and providing visual guidance of the resection guide to the planned distal resection (the virtual surgical guide corresponds to a physical distal femoral guide and the predetermined position – col.15, ll.8-11).
Regarding claim 37, Lang et al disclose an augmented reality device comprising:
a user interface device (col.6, ll.59-60);
a processor (col.6, ll.59-60); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform operations (computer system and software processing – col.47, ll.14-15) comprising:
detecting, using depth information captured by a depth camera of an augmented reality headset and image information captured by a video camera of the augmented reality headset (the sensors or camera attached or integrated into the HMD can include an image capture system, a video capture system, a depth camera – col.32, ll.53-57), one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer (the data collected by sensors or cameras is used for positional tracking as well as other purposes, e.g., image recording or spatial mapping - col.55, ll.23-30; landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained – col.176, ll.58-62) and fiducials associated with a marker affixed to at least one of a femur or a tibia (the image and/or video capture system…monitor the position, and/or orientation and/or alignment…of the optical marker(s) attached to the tibia in relationship with…one or more femoral optical markers – col.84, ll.48-61);
generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features (femoral or tibial component impacting during knee replacement…update or adjust or modify a virtual surgical plan – col.94, ll.62-63; col.95, ll.9-37; a virtual plane relative to one or more anatomic structures of the joint – col.188, ll.62-63);
determining an actual resection plane based on a view of a resection guide having a marker inserted in the guide (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28); and
instructing the user interface to provide guidance to position the guide to align the actual resection plane with the planned resection plane (head mounted display – col.230, ll.50-54).
Lang et al fail to explicitly disclose receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features; and generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more planning inputs.
However, Fanson et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features (the location of the resection plane along the mechanical axis model may be adjustable in response to user input thereby to adjust the desired position and orientation of the resection plane in the augmented reality overlay – [0013]); and generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more planning inputs ([0013]; the surgical planning module may facilitate real-time changes to the surgical plan and the augmented reality overlay of the surgical plan may be updated accordingly – [0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the planned resection plane and one or more positions of the knee anatomical features of Lang et al with receiving one or more planning inputs from a user and generating a planned resection plane based on the one or more planning inputs of Fanson et al as it would provide user input in optimizing the knee replacement procedure.
Regarding claim 38, Lang et al disclose wherein the processor is configured to cause the user interface device to prompt to identify the anatomical features (a surgeon can identify select anatomic landmarks on virtual data – col.66, 36-39); wherein the anatomical features includes at least one of a medial or lateral epicondyles (col.66, l.58), an anterior cortex (col.67, l.44-45), or posterior or distal medial or lateral condyle surfaces (col.178, ll.15-30).
Regarding claim 39, Lang et al disclose the processor is further configured to compute a level of the planned resection plane based on the anatomical features (the virtual surgical guide, e.g., a virtual plane, can be at a predetermined position, predetermined orientation and/or predetermined position and/or orientation…for an intended bone cute for an implant component – col.187, ll.22-28).
Regarding claim 40, Lang et al disclose wherein the user interface device is a speaker configured to provide audio guidance (col.29, l.2).
Regarding claim 41, Lang et al disclose wherein the user interface device is a display configured to provide graphical guidance (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28).
Regarding claim 44, Lang et al disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate metrics, the metrics including at least one of varus or valgus alignment, flexion alignment; and wherein providing the guidance includes visualizing the calculated metrics (col.230, l.65-col.231, l.4).
Regarding claim 51, Lang et al disclose wherein the anatomical features comprise tibial proximal (marker attached to a proximal tibia – col.85, ll.21-22), wherein generating a planned resection plane further comprises calculating a tibial axis being independent of the femur and being away from a femoral knee center, and wherein providing the guidance includes visualizing the tibial axis (tibial axis has been determined or estimated, a virtual surgical plan with tibial resection – col.71, ll.36-39).
Regarding claim 52, Lang et al disclose wherein the processor is further configured to adjust translation/rotation of a femoral component while causing the display to visualize resection planes (distance, offset, angular offset or overall difference in coordinates – col.65, ll.18-21).
Regarding claim 53, Lang et al disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: plan distal resection; and cause the display to provide visual guidance of the resection guide to the planned distal resection (the virtual surgical guide corresponds to a physical distal femoral guide and the predetermined position – col.15, ll.8-11).
Regarding claim 54, Lang et al disclose wherein the processor is further configured to calculate at least one of gap metrics (col.231, ll.15-16); a distal femoral resection (col.88, ll.15-18); a flexion angle (col.71, ll.23-27).
Regarding claim 55, Lang et al disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate at least one of angles and distances to place the implant relative to at least one of the one or more anatomical features; and cause the display to display the at least one of the angels and distances (physical surgical guide 305 – fig.14C; physical surgical guide 305 (solid line) is superimposed with or aligned with the virtual surgical guide 304 (broken line) – fig. 14C; col.231, ll.4-9; a computer processor can track the physical surgical guide 983…using direct video detector or one or more markers – figs. 15A-B; col. 231, ll.23-28).
Regarding claim 56, Lang et al disclose wherein the gap metrics comprise one of flexion/extension gap, and wherein the processor is further configured to cause the display to visualize the gap metrics (col. 231, ll.12-16).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 9, 23, 26, 27, 45, 48 and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al (11,553,969) in view of Fanson et al (2021/0121237) as applied to claims 4, 22 and 44 above, and further in view of Lang et al (2007/0276224), hereinafter Lang ‘224.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 23, 26, 45 and 48, Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the normal to the planned resection plane is computed from a cross product of a femur mechanical axis rotated about a medial-lateral axis by a flexion angle and a medial-lateral axis rotated about an anterior-posterior axis by an angle of varus or valgus and wherein computing the normal comprising computing the anterior-posterior axis from a cross product of the femur mechanical axis and the medial-lateral axis.
However, Lang ‘224 teaches in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein a normal to a planned resection plane is computed from a cross product of a femur mechanical axis rotated about a medial-lateral axis by a flexion angle and a medial-lateral axis rotated about an anterior-posterior axis by an angle of varus or valgus; and wherein computing the normal comprising computing the anterior-posterior axis from a cross product of the femur mechanical axis and the medial-lateral axis (figs.12A and B; the final position of the inferior-superior axis is made orthogonal to the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral axis through a cross product operation; the anterior-posterior axis is the cross product of the medial-lateral and inferior-superior axes – [0356]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the normal to the planned resection plane of Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al with a cross product of a femur mechanical axis rotated about a medial-lateral axis by a flexion angle and a medial-lateral axis rotated about an anterior-posterior axis by an angle of varus or valgus as it would provide a resection plane defined through bony landmarks.
Regarding claims 9, 27 and 49, Lang et al disclose further comprising computing a location of a distal resection plane along the computed normal (the virtual surgical guide corresponds to a physical distal femoral guide and the predetermined position – col.15, ll.8-11).
Claim(s) 6, 24 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al (11,553,969) in view of Fanson et al (2021/0121237) and further in view of Lang et al (2007/0276224), hereinafter Lang ‘224 as applied to claims 5, 23 and 45 above, and further in view of Fissette et al (2023/0052103).
Regarding claims 6, 24 and 46, Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al and Lang ‘224 disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein computing the normal comprises computing the femur mechanical axis from a difference between the femoral head center and the femoral canal entry.
However, Fissette et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein computing a normal comprises computing the femur mechanical axis from a difference between the femoral head center and the femoral canal entry (the femoral mechanical axis is defined as the segment connecting the entry point of the femoral medullary canal (KF point) to the center of the femoral head (H point) – [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the implant calculations of Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al and Lang ‘224 with computing the femur mechanical axis from a difference between the femoral head center and the femoral canal entry as the difference is defined as the femur mechanical axis and optimizes mechanical pre-positioning.
Claim(s) 11, 29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al (11,553,969) in view of Fanson et al (2021/0121237) as applied to claims 1, 19 and 41 above, and further in view of Nikou (2022/01517040).
Regarding claims 11, 29 and 42, Lang et al disclose further comprising displaying at least one of a planar rotation or a translation error within a distal resection plane (distance, offset, angular offset or overall difference in coordinates – col.65, ll.18-21).
Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein the guidance is at least a portion of a 4-in-1 resection guidance.
However, Nikou teaches in the same medical field of endeavor, a 4-in-1 cutting guide ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the resection guidance of Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al with a 4-in-1 cutting guide as it would provide a conventional means for performing resections (Nikou – [0082]).
Claim(s) 12, 30 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al (11,553,969) in view of Fanson et al (2021/0121237) as applied to claims 1, 19 and 41 above, and further in view of Pissarenko et al (2024/0320935).
Regarding claim 12, 30 and 43, Lang et al disclose wherein the guidance is at least a portion of a tibial resection guidance (femoral or tibial component impacting during knee replacement…update or adjust or modify a virtual surgical plan – col.94, ll.62-63; col.95, ll.9-11), but fail to explicitly disclose further comprising displaying at least one of a resection plane angular error or a resection plane depth error.
However, Pissarenko et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, further comprising displaying at least one of a resection plane angular error or a resection plane depth error (the AR system may produce direct parameter differences such as angles…derived quality metrics (‘cut quality’) or it may produce resulting clinical parameter error – [0434]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display of Lang et al as modified by Fanson et al with displaying at least one of a resection plane angular error or a resection plane depth error as it would provide the user with the cut quality of the current alignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 25, 28, 47, 50 and 57-59 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the prior art fail to disclose the amended limitations “detecting, using depth information capture by a depth camera of the augmented reality device and image information captured by a video camera of the augmented reality device, one or more positions of the knee anatomical features…”, “displaying an overlay of the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features” and “generating a planned resection plane based on…the one or more detected knee anatomical features”.
Examiner’s position is Lang et al disclose “depth information capture by a depth camera of the augmented reality device and image information captured by a video camera of the augmented reality device” (the sensors or camera attached or integrated into the HMD can include an image capture system, a video capture system, a depth camera - col.32, ll.53-57; the data collected by sensors or cameras is used for positional tracking as well as other purposes, e.g., image recording or spatial mapping - col.55, ll.23-30).
Examiner’s position is Lang et al disclose “displaying an overlay of the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features” (virtual data of the patient can be projected superimposed onto live data of the patient for each individual viewer – col.38, ll.11-14).
Examiner’s position is Lang et al disclose “generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features” (the resultant information can, for example, be used to update or adjust or modify a virtual surgical plan or virtual displays for the movement of the patient…and/or one or more of a predetermined tissue change or alteration using the new patient coordinates or the new coordinates of the surgical field – col.95, ll.8-37; a virtual plane relative to one or more anatomic structures of the joint – col.188, ll.62-63). Examiner notes the claim only broadly states that the generating a planned resection plane is “based on” the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features, but does not define how this information is utilized.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended limitations “receiving one or more planning inputs from a user specifying a desired location or orientation of a resection plane relative to the detected one or more positions of knee anatomical features” and “generating a planned resection plane based on the one or more planning inputs…” 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCHELLE DEANNA TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-2:30.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571)272-7230. 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.
/ROCHELLE D TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights