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 STATUS
Claims 1-44 were initially filed.
Claims 21-44 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11, 13-14, and 16-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS/ARGUMENTS
– 35 USC § 112(d) –
Claim 7 was rejected under 35 USC § 112(d).
Re claim 7, the Examiner appreciates the Applicant’s prompt attention to this deficiency and, in view of Applicant’s amendments, hereby withdraws such rejections.
– 35 USC § 101 –
Claims 1-10 and 13-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Re claim 1, Applicant fails to address the rejection of record as written in the previous Office Action and further sets for limitations into the claim, not set forth by the language itself. For instance, nowhere in claim 1 is there a step of “generating measurement data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope based on a set of instructed moves or poses that help to determine femoral alignment”, as alleged by the Applicant. Furthermore, nowhere in the previous Office Action does the Examiner assert that such a step, even if it were to exist, was directed toward the abstract idea. In fact, there is only a recitation of “receiving” this data. The abstract idea lies in the determining step which clearly can be characterized as a mental process based on received data. Merely tying this generically to the data input device and coupling it with an output device does not sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claims 1-20 remain rejected, in light of Applicant’s amendments.
– 35 USC § 102 –
Claims 1-4, 11-15, and 19-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by TRABISH.
As discussed in the interview conducted on February 20, 2026, the Examiner indicated that the originally proposed amendments did not likely overcome the prior art of record. Further amendments were discussed and tentatively indicated as sufficient for overcoming the rejection of record. Applicant has chosen not incorporate the elements of those further amendments at this time. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected with the newly amended features addressed below.
– 35 USC § 103 –
Claims 5-10 and 16-18 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over TRABISH/AUBIN.
Re claims 5-10 and 16-18, Applicant argues their allowability based solely upon their respective dependence to claims 1, 11, and 19. Accordingly, claims 5-10 and 16-18 remain rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims.
– Additional Remarks –
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant’s or patent owner’s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section1.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph2:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “instructions…to perform operations, including… receiving… determining… causing” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (89 FR 58128 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2024 GUIDANCE), the claim(s) appear to fall into one of the enumerated statutory categories and recites at least one judicial exception, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Re claim 13, Applicant recites the following limitations:
determining the femoral alignment based on the first data and the second data
This step is directed to a mental process. The 2024 GUIDANCE expressly recognizes such mental processes as constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, these limitations can reasonably be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Step 2A, prong II, of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the 2024 GUIDANCE identifies various considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Re claim 13, in addition to reciting the above-noted abstract idea(s), the judicial exception recited in the claim is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited, namely “a measurement device that includes: a housing that is configured to couple to a musculoskeletal system of the patient; an inertial measurement unit disposed within the housing, and including: an accelerometer; and a gyroscope; a display; and a computing device for determining the femoral alignment of the femur of the patient, the computing device including: at least one processor; a communication component operatively connected to the processor; and a memory operatively connected to the processor, and storing instructions that are executable by the processor to perform operations, including: causing a display to output instructions for moving or posing a musculoskeletal system of the patient to a first pose; receiving first data from the measurement device that includes a plurality of measurements from each of the accelerometer and the gyroscope during the first pose of the patient; causing a display to output instructions for moving the musculoskeletal system of the patient to a second pose; receiving second data from the measurement device that includes a plurality of measurements from each of the accelerometer and the gyroscope during the second pose of the patient; and causing the display to output the determined femoral alignment ”, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity. An example such activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. Here, the “receiving first data…” step merely represents data gathering while the “causing” step merely represents insignificant post-solution activity. Furthermore, nothing in the claim reasonably indicates that anything other than a generic computer (i.e., “display… computing device… at least one processor… a communication component… and a memory… ”) needs to be used to carry out the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Step 2B of the 2024 GUIDANCE, next analyzes whether the claimed invention adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Re claim 13, the additional limitation(s) recited above only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological field. Furthermore, these additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they again merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., receiving… outputting data) while only generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological field (i.e., performed by a “computer processor” using a high level “measurement device”). Further still, this/these additional limitation(s) does/do not, as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for at least these reasons.
Re claims 12-18, these claims do not cure the deficiencies noted above with regard to claim 13, from which they depend, as they merely add further mental processing steps and/or other extra-solution activity. Accordingly, they are rejected under the same or substantially similar analysis, as outlined above.
Re claims 1-10 and 19-20, Applicant recites language similar to claims 13-20, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 1-10 and 19-20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 101 as failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 11-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1),(2) as being anticipated by Trabish et al., US20200405219 (hereinafter “TRABISH”).
Re claim 1, TRABISH discloses:
A method for measuring a femoral alignment between a mechanical axis and a femoral implant via a surgically implanted measurement device [0063], the method comprising:
causing a display to output instructions for moving or posing a musculoskeletal system of the patient [0199], [0208];
receiving, via at least one processor, first data from the measurement device [0062], wherein:
a housing of the measurement device is coupled to a musculoskeletal system of a patient [0062]; and
the first data includes a plurality of measurements generated by each of an accelerometer and a gyroscope included with an inertial measurement unit disposed within the housing, the plurality of measurements generated based on an instructed movement or pose of the musculoskeletal system of the patient [0169], [0208];
determining the femoral alignment between a mechanical axis and the femoral implant based on the first data [0116], [0173]; and
causing a display to output the determined femoral alignment between the mechanical axis and the femoral implant [0109-0112]
Re claim 2, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TRABISH further discloses:
prior to receiving the first data, coupling the housing to the musculoskeletal system of the patient [0072]
Re claim 3, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TRABISH further discloses:
wherein the mechanical axis is an axis of a femur of the patient [0057], [0079]
Re claim 4, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. TRABISH further discloses:
different portions of the first data correspond to respective movements or poses of the musculoskeletal system of the patient [0199]; and
causing the display to output the instructions for moving or posing the musculoskeletal system of the patient includes iteratively causing the display to output respective instruction for each of the respective movement or pose, iteration between a current respective movement or pose and a next respective movement or pose being based on receiving a portion of the first data corresponding to the current respective movement or pose [0199]
Re claim 11, TRABISH discloses:
A system for measuring a femoral alignment of a femur of a patient [0063], comprising:
a measurement device [0063] that includes:
a housing that is configured to couple to a musculoskeletal system of the patient [0062];
an inertial measurement unit disposed within the housing, and including: an accelerometer; and a gyroscope [0169];
a display [0099];
a computing device for determining the femoral alignment of the femur of the patient, the computing device including: at least one processor, a communication component operatively connected to the processor, and a memory operatively connected to the processor and storing instructions that are executable by the processor to perform operations [0099], [0093]
Furthermore, Applicant recites further claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, they are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re claim 12, TRABISH discloses the system of claim 11, as shown above. TRABISH further discloses:
a prosthetic knee joint including a femoral prosthetic component coupled to a distal end of a femur of the patient, wherein the housing of the measurement device is configured to removably couple to the femoral prosthetic component [0112], [0154]
Re claims 13-15 and 19-20, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claims 1-4. Accordingly, claims 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 1-4.
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 5-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TRABISH in view of Aubin et al., US20230022710 (hereinafter “AUBIN”).
Re claim 5, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
TRABISH fails to explicitly disclose:
performing, via the at least one processor, a validation of the first data, wherein in response to the first data failing the validation, the at least one processor is configured to: cause the display to output a prompt to reacquire the plurality of measurements; receive a second data from the measurement device that includes a further plurality of measurements from each of the accelerometer and the gyroscope; and replace the first data with the second data, so that the femoral alignment is determined based on the second data
However, AUBIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
a system for measuring femoral alignment by validating measurement data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope and making adjustments to the data for training models, including setting thresholds to ensure measurement data used to determine femoral alignment is accurate based on updated and valid data sets [0193], [0394-0395], [0432-0442]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify TRABISH to include the particular data validation techniques of AUBIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a system for post-operative monitoring of patient conditions (e.g., femoral alignment) (see at least AUBIN [0128]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, AUBIN merely teaches that it is well-known to perform data validation in a measurement system. Since both TRABISH and AUBIN disclose similar systems for post-operative femoral alignment measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 6, TRABISH/AUBIN renders obvious the method of claim 5, as shown above.
TRABISH fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein performing the validation includes: determining, via the at least one processor, one or more of a maximum linear rate, a maximum angular rate, or a time-integration error of the plurality of measurements in the first data; and determining whether the one or more of the maximum linear rate, the maximum angular rate, or the time-integration error exceeds a respective predetermined threshold
However, AUBIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
a system for measuring femoral alignment by validating measurement data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope and making adjustments to the data for training models, including setting thresholds to ensure measurement data used to determine femoral alignment is accurate based on updated and valid data sets, including thresholds for valid data [0193], [0394-0395], [0432-0442]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify TRABISH to include the particular data validation techniques of AUBIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a system for post-operative monitoring of patient conditions (e.g., femoral alignment) (see at least AUBIN [0128]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, AUBIN merely teaches that it is well-known to perform data validation in a measurement system. Since both TRABISH and AUBIN disclose similar systems for post-operative femoral alignment measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 7, TRABISH/AUBIN renders obvious the method of claim 6, as shown above.
TRABISH fails to explicitly disclose:
determining whether the time-integration error exceeds a predetermined threshold wherein determining the time-integration error includes: determining a measured ending gravity direction based on one or more static measurements received from the accelerometer in an end portion of the plurality of measurements; determining an estimated gravity direction from a time-integrated angular rate of the plurality of measurements; and determining an angular error between the measured ending gravity direction and the estimated gravity direction
However, AUBIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
a system for measuring femoral alignment by validating measurement data from an accelerometer and a gyroscope, including determining a measured gravity direction and an angular error relative to the measured gravity direction [0359], [0203-0204], [0221-0227]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify TRABISH to include the particular data validation techniques of AUBIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a system for post-operative monitoring of patient conditions (e.g., femoral alignment) (see at least AUBIN [0128]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, AUBIN merely teaches that it is well-known to perform data validation in a measurement system. Since both TRABISH and AUBIN disclose similar systems for post-operative femoral alignment measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 8, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
TRABISH fails to explicitly disclose:
obtaining calibration data for the inertial measurement unit stored in a memory of the measurement device; and prior to determining the femoral alignment, modifying the plurality of measurements based on the calibration data
However, AUBIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
a system for measuring femoral alignment by calibrating IMU data and utilizing compensating offsets for accurate measurement data [0186]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify TRABISH to include the particular IMU calibration techniques of AUBIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a system for post-operative monitoring of patient conditions (e.g., femoral alignment) (see at least AUBIN [0128]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, AUBIN merely teaches that it is well-known to perform calibration for an IMU in a femoral alignment measurement system. Since both TRABISH and AUBIN disclose similar systems for post-operative femoral alignment measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 9, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
TRABISH fails to explicitly disclose:
preprocessing the first data by at least removing one or more of the plurality of measurements that exceeds a predetermined maximum angular acceleration
However, AUBIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
a system for measuring femoral alignment by preprocessing measurement data, including thresholds on angular acceleration [0094], [0326], [0308]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify TRABISH to include the particular data preprocessing techniques of AUBIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a system for post-operative monitoring of patient conditions (e.g., femoral alignment) (see at least AUBIN [0128]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, AUBIN merely teaches that it is well-known to preprocess measurement data in a femoral alignment measurement system. Since both TRABISH and AUBIN disclose similar systems for post-operative femoral alignment measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claim 10, TRABISH discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above.
TRABISH fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein determining the femoral alignment includes: obtaining, from each of the plurality of measurements in the first data, a respective linear acceleration, and a respective angular velocity; determining a respective angular acceleration for each of the plurality of measurements based on the first data; determining an estimated gravity direction based on the first data; using the respective linear accelerations, the respective angular velocities, the respective angular accelerations, and the estimated gravity direction to determine a position vector from a center of rotation of the femur to the measurement device; using the position vector to determine a mechanical axis of the femur; and defining the femoral alignment based on the mechanical axis of the femur
However, AUBIN, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches:
a system for measuring femoral alignment including, obtaining a respective linear acceleration, and a respective angular velocity; determining a respective angular acceleration for each of the plurality of measurements based on first data; determining an estimated gravity direction based on the first data; using the respective linear accelerations, the respective angular velocities, the respective angular accelerations, and the estimated gravity direction to determine a position vector from a center of rotation of the femur to the measurement device; using the position vector to determine a mechanical axis of the femur; and defining the femoral alignment based on the mechanical axis of the femur [0193], [0394-0395], [0432-0442]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify TRABISH to include the particular femoral alignment measurement techniques of AUBIN. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a system for post-operative monitoring of patient conditions (e.g., femoral alignment) (see at least AUBIN [0128]). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, AUBIN merely teaches that it is well-known to use respective angular velocities, angular accelerations, linear accelerations, and estimated gravity directions to determine a mechanical axis of the femur in a femoral alignment measurement system. Since both TRABISH and AUBIN disclose similar systems for post-operative femoral alignment measurements, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Re claims 16-18, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 8-10. Accordingly, claims 16-18 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 8-10.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20130226035, Stein et al. – a measurement device for the muscular-skeletal system having alignment features.
US20220202505, Roche – surgical system for post-operative measurement of motion and position of the musculoskeletal system
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is (571)272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b)
2 MPEP § 2181, subsection I