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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-22, 31-41, 44 and 51-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang et al (11,553,969).
Regarding claim 1, Lang et al disclose a method comprising:
detecting one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer (landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained using, for example, a pointer – 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.9-11);
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 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).
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 one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer (landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained using, for example, a pointer – 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.9-11);
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).
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 one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer (landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…features for…the knee…can be obtained using, for example, a pointer – 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.9-11);
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).
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 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) 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 Lang et al (2007/0276224), hereinafter Lang ‘224.
Regarding claims 5, 8, 23, 26, 45 and 48, Lang 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 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 Lang et al (2007/0276224), hereinafter Lang ‘224 as applied to claim 5, 23 and 45 above, and further in view of Fissette et al (2023/0052103).
Regarding claims 6, 24 and 46, Lang et al 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and 50 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 15 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Lang is a lengthy reference and Examiner has pointed to disparate portions of the reference, pulling from descriptions of disparate examples. In the end, the reference as a whole fails to teach the combination of recitations in claim 1.
Examiner’s position is Lang discloses that features described can be applied to many different embodiments throughout the features and the limitations as described below have been applied properly.
Applicant states Lang does not disclose “detecting one or more positions of knee anatomical features based on positions of a pointer and fiducials…”. Specifically, Applicant states Lang is concerned with a pointer that may be used to obtain a landmark in an x-ray image to be used for tissue morphing. At most, Applicant states Lang describes the use of a fiducial on a particular location to track movement of the fiducial and align live and virtual patient data.
Examiner notes the claim as written states “detecting one or more positions…based on positions of a pointer and fiducials associated with a marker”. The claim only broadly discloses “detecting” one or more positions and does not limit how this detection is “based on” a position of a pointer and fiducials “associated with” a marker. The claim does not provide any specifics as to how the detecting is performed.
Lang et al discloses “landmarks, distances, dimensions, surfaces…lengths, widths, depths and/or other features for the knee can be obtained using, for example, a pointer, a 3D scanner, a video system and/or an image capture system, or an imaging technique (col.176, ll.58-62). A position is simply a particular way in which something is arranged (Oxford Dictionary). The pointer obtaining the dimensions, surfaces, lengths, widths and depth of a feature of the knee is “detecting one or more positions of knee anatomical features”. It does not matter if the information from the pointer is also used to perform other tasks. Further, the claim merely discloses “detecting” and the pointer of Lang et al is disclosed as performing this task by obtaining these features.
Lang et al further discloses the image and/or video capture system integrated into, attached to or separate from the HMD can be used to monitor the position, and/or orientation…of the optical marker(s) attached to the tibia in relationship to the image and/or video capture system (col.84, ll.48-61). The one or more positions of knee anatomical features are clearly detected based on positions of fiducials associated with a marker affixed to a tibia.
As stated above, the position of the knee anatomical features of Lang et al can be obtained using, for example, a pointer, a 3D scanner, a video system and/or an image capture system. It is clear from the cited portions that the portions relied upon by Examiner are not disparate and instead clearly disclose the use of both positions of a pointer and fiducials to detect one or more positions of knee anatomical features.
Applicant states the prior art fail to disclose or suggest “generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features”. Specifically, Applicant states, at most, Lang describes adjusting a virtual surgical plan based on detected movement of an optical marker.
Examiner’s position is Lang et al discloses detecting the one or more positions based on positions of a pointer and fiducials, as set forth above. Examiner notes the limitation “generating a planned resection plane for resection based on the one or more positions” does not limit how the generating is “based on” the one or more positions. Further, Examiner notes that the claim as written relies on the same one or more positions to generate a planned resection plane, the generating is not “based on the detecting” of the one or more positions. Lang et al disclose the movement (i.e. one or more positions) of the femoral or tibial component impacting during knee replacement…the resultant information can, for example, be used to update or adjust or modify a virtual surgical plan (i.e., generating a planned resection plane based on the one or more positions of the knee anatomical features) (col.94, ll.62-63; col.95, ll.9-11). Examiner notes Lang et al further disclose the virtual surgical plan is developed for or by the robotic system, e.g. using imaging data and/or painting of one or more articular surfaces using a pointer (virtual plane, can be derived, by touching select landmarks of a joint or painting portions of the joint, with a pointer – col.187, ll.50-54; col.188, ll.52-61).
Applicant states Lang does not disclose or suggest “determining an actual resection plane based on a view of a resection guide having a marker inserted in the guide”. At most, Lang has described registering a femur and displaying a virtual surgical guide to which a physical virtual guide may be aligned.
Examiner notes the claim does not limit how the actual resection plane is determined “based on a view of a resection guide…”. Examiner’s position is the actual resection plane is considered to be the plane in which the physical surgical instrument (i.e., block) is located. This information is determined since the location, position, alignment and/or orientation of the optical marker on the surgical instrument are known and the dimensions or geometry of the surgical instrument are known. The image and/or video capture system tracks the optical marker and the surgical instrument, therefore the actual resection plane is determined based on a view of a resection guide having a marker inserted in the guide (col.231, ll.4-9 and ll.23-28; figs. 15A-B).
Applicant states Lang does not disclose or suggest “providing guidance, using an augmented reality headset, to position the guide to align the actual resection plane with the planned resection plane”. Lang, at most, describes alignment of devices, and is silent about alignment of planned and actual resection planes.
Examiner notes the claim broadly discloses “providing guidance” using an augmented reality headset, to position the guide…, but does not disclose the type/form of the guidance which is provided. Lang et al disclose the use of virtual surgical guides through a head mounted display and physical guides (col.230, ll.50-54). This is considered a form of guidance which anticipates “providing, guidance, using an augmented reality headset, to position…”. Examiner notes Lang et al goes on to discuss the head mounted display provides alignment of the physical surgical guide (actual resection plane) with the virtual surgical guide (planned resection plane) as the purpose of the surgical guides is to align the resection plane (cut block) in col.231, ll.5-8. This feature is similarly disclosed in col.86, l.63-col.87, l.4 and is therefore not a disparate example.
Applicant states Lang fails to disclose the limitations of claims 19 and 37 for at least analogous reasons as described in claim 1.
Examiner’s position is claims 19 and 37 are disclosed by Lang et al for at least the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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