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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haechler et al. (US 20090264737 A1), hereinafter Haechler.
Regarding Claim 1, Haechler teaches: A knee joint implant (figure 1) comprising:
a femoral implant coupled to a femur of a patient (abstract; paragraph 0008; 0046-0048; 0058), the femoral implant including at least one marker (paragraph 0030);
a patellar implant including (abstract; paragraph 0008; 0046-0048; 0058):
at least one marker reader to detect a position of the marker to ascertain positional data of the patellar implant with respect to the femoral implant (paragraph 0030), and
a processor operatively coupled to the marker reader,
wherein the processor outputs the positional data to an external source (paragraph 0029; figure 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Haechler teaches: The knee joint implant of claim 1, wherein the patellar implant includes a transmitter to transmit the positional data to an external source (figure 1; paragraph 0029-0030; Examiner notes that the transmitter is inherent).
Regarding Claim 11, Haechler teaches: The knee joint implant of claim 1, wherein the positional data indicates at least one of patellar shift and patellar rotation (paragraph 0033).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haechler in view of Disilvestro (US 20050010299 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Haechler teaches: The knee joint implant of claim 1, but does not mention wherein the marker is a magnet and the marker reader is a magnetic sensor.
Disilvestro teaches wherein the marker is a magnet and the marker reader is a magnetic sensor (paragraph 0044-0053). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include wherein the marker is a magnet and the marker reader is a magnetic sensor as the substitution of one marker for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 3, Haechler in view of Disilvestro teach: The knee joint implant of claim 2, wherein the magnetic sensor is a Hall sensor assembly including at least one Hall sensor (Disilvestro – paragraph 0053).
Claim(s) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haechler in view of Disilvestro, further in view of Johannaber et al. (US 20180116805 A1), hereinafter Johannaber.
Regarding Claim 4, Haechler in view of Disilvestro teach: The knee joint implant of claim 3, but do not explicitly mention wherein the magnet is a magnetic track disposed along a surface of the femoral implant.
Johannaber teaches wherein the magnet is a magnetic track disposed along a surface of the femoral implant(paragraph 0025-0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention to include wherein the magnet is a magnetic track disposed along a surface of the femoral implant as the substitution of one magnetic tracker for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 5, Haechler in view of Disilvestro, further in view of Johannaber teach: The knee joint implant of claim 4, wherein the femoral implant includes a first magnetic track extending along a medial side of the first implant and a second magnetic track extending along a lateral side of the femoral implant (figure 1; while a ring is shown, a first and second track can be arbitrarily identified).
Regarding Claim 6, Haechler in view of Disilvestro, further in view of Johannaber teach: The knee joint implant of claim 5, wherein the patellar implant includes a first Hall sensor assembly on a medial side of the patellar implant and a second Hall sensor assembly on a lateral side of the patellar implant, the first Hall sensor assembly configured to read a magnetic flux density of the first magnetic track and the second Hall sensor assembly configured to read a magnetic flux density of the second magnetic track (figure 2A; paragraph 0029-0031).
Regarding Claim 7, Haechler in view of Disilvestro, further in view of Johannaber teach: The knee joint implant of claim 6, but do not mention wherein a central portion of the first magnetic track is narrower than an anterior end and a posterior end of the first magnetic track. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention wherein a central portion of the first magnetic track is narrower than an anterior end and a posterior end of the first magnetic track as it has been held that changes in shape or size is a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, Haechler in view of Disilvestro, further in view of Johannaber teach: The knee joint implant of claim 7, wherein the first magnetic track includes curved magnetic lines extending across the first magnetic track (figure 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haechler in view of Stein et al. (US 20140275815 A1 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Stein.
Regarding Claim 9, Haechler teaches: The knee joint implant of claim 1, but does not mention wherein the patellar implant includes any of a pH sensor, a temperature sensor, a load sensor and a pressure sensor operatively coupled to the processor.
Stein teaches wherein the patellar implant includes any of a pH sensor, a temperature sensor, a load sensor and a pressure sensor operatively coupled to the processor (paragraph 0188). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the invention wherein the patellar implant includes any of a pH sensor, a temperature sensor, a load sensor and a pressure sensor operatively coupled to the processor in order to obtain additional data to make qualitative assessments of joint stability and health.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights