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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 8th, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on December 8th, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the unity of invention shall be fulfilled because there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, or these different categories of invention should be considered to have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the inventions lack unity a priori. The invention of Group I directed to a method performing a bone osteotomy, the invention of Group II is directed to a cutting apparatus, the invention of Group III is directed to an electronic device and the invention of Group IV is directed to non-volatiles computer-readable storage medium. All the inventions are separate and distinct as they do not all share the same special technical feature(s).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Applicant is reminded their Abstract is to be within 50-150 words in length. The currently filed Abstract is in excess of 150 words.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGinley et al. (US 2016/0128704) in view of Nguyen (US 2015/0342618).
Regarding claim 1, McGinley et al. disclose a method for variable speed osteotomy, comprising controlling a bone saw (54, figure 3, 22) to perform an osteotomy operation at a first speed in a first tissue (¶29); obtaining a power representation signal of the bone saw during the osteotomy operation; processing the power representation signal (¶29, acceleration or velocity signal); performing, based on a predefined threshold, a denoising operation (¶27, ¶86) on the high frequency component to obtain a denoised high frequency component (¶86); determining, based on the denoised power representation signal, whether the bone saw enters, from the first tissue, a second tissue having a different property from the first tissue (¶29); and controlling, when it is determined that the bone saw enters the second tissue from the first tissue, the bone saw to perform the osteotomy operation at a second speed in the second tissue (¶32, ¶127).
McGinley et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose a high frequency component and a low frequency component of the power representation signal and the reconstructing is reconstructing the denoised high frequency component and the low frequency component to obtain the denoised power representation signal.
Nguyen teach the use of a powered surgical cutting tool using for bone removal (figure 3-9) and processing a power representation signal (¶52, ¶54) to obtain a high frequency component and a low frequency component of the power representation signal and the reconstructing is reconstructing the denoised high frequency component and the low frequency component to obtain the denoised power representation signal (¶27-28, ¶52, ¶54) as taught by Nguyen as it provides a crucial advantage in that it allows for information gained from the signal is used to control the cutting element to prevent the surgeon from inadvertently causing damage to the underlining tissue.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the method of McGinley et al. to have a step of obtaining high and low frequency components of the power representation signal and reconstructing the denoised high frequency component and the low frequency component to obtain the denoised power representation signal as taught by Nguyen as it provides a crucial advantage in that it allows for information gained from the signal is used to control the cutting element to prevent the surgeon from inadvertently causing damage to the underlining tissue.
Regarding claim 2, McGinley in view of Nguyen disclose the power representation signal is obtained by sampling, at a predetermined sampling frequency, a signal representing a motor power of the bone saw during the osteotomy operation (¶32, ¶127 of McGinley in view of ¶54 of Nguyen). Regarding claim 3, McGinley et al. in view of Nguyen disclose processing the power representation signal to obtain a high frequency component and a low frequency component of the power representation signal comprises discretizing the power representation signal using wavelet decomposition to obtain the high frequency component and the low frequency component of the power representation signal (¶50-51 of Nguyen).
Regarding claim 9, McGinley et al. disclose wherein determining, based on the denoised power representation signal, whether the bone saw enters, from the first tissue, a second tissue having a different property from the first tissue comprises (¶27, ¶29)determining, based on a property difference between the first tissue and the second tissue, a critical power representation threshold (¶27, ¶86); and determining, when a value of the denoised power representation signal exceeds the critical power representation threshold, that the bone saw enters the second tissue from the first tissue (¶27, ¶86).
Regarding claim 10, McGinley et al. disclose normalizing the denoised power representation signal to obtain a normalized power representation signal (¶86).
Regarding claim 12, McGinley et al. disclose the power representation signal is a power signal, a current signal or a voltage signal (¶23).
Regarding claim 16, McGinley et al. disclose a method for detecting an osteotomy state, comprising controlling a bone saw (54, figure 3, 22) to perform an osteotomy operation; obtaining a power representation signal (¶29 acceleration or velocity signal) of the bone saw during the osteotomy operation; performing, based on a predefined threshold, a denoising operation (¶27, ¶86) on the power representation signal to obtain a denoised high frequency component (¶86); reconstructing the denoised component to obtain a denoised power representation signal (¶27, ¶29, ¶86); and determining an osteotomy state of the bone saw based on the denoised power representation signal (¶29).
McGinley et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose a high frequency component and a low frequency component of the power representation signal and the reconstructing is reconstructing the denoised high frequency component and the low frequency component to obtain the denoised power representation signal.
Nguyen teach the use of a powered surgical cutting tool using for bone removal (figure 3-9) and processing a power representation signal (¶52, ¶54) to obtain a high frequency component and a low frequency component of the power representation signal and the reconstructing is reconstructing the denoised high frequency component and the low frequency component to obtain the denoised power representation signal (¶27-28, ¶52, ¶54) as taught by Nguyen as it provides a crucial advantage in that it allows for information gained from the signal is used to control the cutting element to prevent the surgeon from inadvertently causing damage to the underlining tissue.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the method of McGinley et al. to have a step of obtaining high and low frequency components of the power representation signal and reconstructing the denoised high frequency component and the low frequency component to obtain the denoised power representation signal as taught by Nguyen as it provides a crucial advantage in that it allows for information gained from the signal is used to control the cutting element to prevent the surgeon from inadvertently causing damage to the underlining tissue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited art teaches the use of a wavelet decomposition function to obtain first, second and third order frequency portions of the power representation signal as required by claim 4. While Nguyen teaches the use of a wavelet decomposition it is silent to the specific mechanism(s) in which the wavelet is applied to the power representation signal. Any modification to Nguyen would yield a rejection where the modification would be further modified by another teaching which is impermissible. With regard to claim 11, none of the cited art teaches the normalization uses an arc cotangent.
Claims 5-8 are indicated allowable as they depend either directly or indirectly from claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7375. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-3:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/MATTHEW J LAWSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights