DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Remarks
The current application has at least 43 related applications with at least 17 being a CIP application. The current claim limitations lack support, at least, in the parent application No. 14/776,660 dated 09/14/2015. Thus, Dossett, et al. (US 9,532,845) with a priority date of 08/11/2015 is considered prior art reference for the current application.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Dossett, et al. (US 9,532,845).
Regarding claim 1, Dossett discloses a “memory (Fig. 2; column 6, lines 31-42) comprising programmed instructions and one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions (Fig. 2) stored in the memory to: obtain implant data for a selected implant (Fig. 5, ref.# 500); generate bone data for a patient femur (Fig. 5, ref.# 504), wherein the bone data comprises: data pertaining to a healthy region of the patient femur and an arthritic region of the patient femur (column 2, lines 1-12); and an angle defined in a coronal view of the patient femur between a knee joint line and an axis extending along a femoral shaft of the patient femur (Fig. 3; column 9, lines 46-55); generate resection data (Fig. 5, ref.# 504) based at least in part on the implant data and the bone data; and output a recommended three-dimensional knee replacement surgery plan (Fig. 5, ref.# 510) for the patient femur comprising the resection data for facilitating implantation of the selected implant on the patient femur (abstract).”
Regarding claim 2, Dossett discloses “wherein the knee joint line intersects a most distal point on a medial condylar surface of the patient femur and a most distal point on a lateral condylar surface of the patient femur.” (Fig. 3; column 10, lines 46-58)
Regarding claim 3, Dossett discloses “wherein the axis extending along the femoral shaft of the patient femur comprises a trochlear groove line.” (Fig. 4; column 11, lines 6-9)
Regarding claim 4, Dossett discloses “wherein the axis extending along the femoral shaft of the patient femur comprises a femoral mechanical axis.” (column 9, lines 56-58; column 10, lines 46-58; column 12, lines 46-53
Regarding claim 5, Dossett discloses “wherein, when the angle is less than or equal to three degrees of being zero degree mechanical axis, the knee joint line is considered to be aligned in an acceptable natural alignment.” (Fig. 3, column 9, lines 46-55)
Regarding claim 6, Dossett discloses “wherein the angle is 90 degrees or nearly 90 degrees.” (Fig. 3, column 9, lines 46-55)
Regarding claim 7, Dossett discloses “wherein the bone data further comprises a line intersecting a most posterior point on a medial condylar surface of the patient femur and a most posterior point on a lateral condylar surface of the patient femur.” (column 11, lines 6-9)
Regarding claim 8, Dossett discloses “wherein the resection data comprises at least one adjustment for internal/external rotation or cartilage thickness.” (column 1, lines 9 - column 2, line 20)
Regarding claim 9, Dossett discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to: employ patient attribute data retrieved from a database in the process of generating the resection data, the patient attribute data comprising demographic information for a plurality of other patients.” (column 8, lines 60 – 63)
Regarding claim 10, Dossett discloses “wherein the demographic information comprises at least one of weight, height, race, gender, age or diagnosed disease condition.” (column 8, lines 60 – 63)
Regarding claim 11, Dossett discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to select the selected implant from a database of candidate implants according to at least one of an implant manufacturer, an implant type or an implant size.” (column 16, lines 2-19)
Regarding claim 12, Dossett discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to select the selected implant by comparison of a characteristic of the patient femur to characteristics of candidate implants.” (column 16, lines 2-19)
Regarding claim 13, Dossett discloses “wherein the characteristic of the patient femur is a size of the patient femur and the characteristics of the candidate implants is sizes of the candidate implants.” (column 16, lines 2-19)
Regarding claim 14, Dossett discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to facilitate the generation of one or more individualized knee replacement guides according to the recommended three-dimensional knee replacement surgery plan.” (abstract)
Regarding claim 15, Dossett discloses “wherein bone data is generated at least in part from medical imaging of the patient femur.” (column 3, lines 32-33)
Regarding claim 16, Dossett discloses wherein the medical imaging includes at least one of MRI or CT.” (column 3, lines 32-33)
Regarding claim 17, Dossett discloses “wherein the implant data comprises a computer model of the selected implant, and the bone data includes a computer model of the patient femur.” (column 12, lines 15-28)
Regarding claim 18, Dossett discloses “wherein generating the resection data comprises overlaying the computer model of the selected implant and the computer model of the patient femur with each other in a computer coordinate system.” (abstract, column 1, line 59 – column 2, line 20)
Regarding claim 19, Dossett discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to identify a registration surface on the patient femur and correlate the registration surface with the resection data so as to result in a desired and planned resection of the patient femur.” (abstract, column 1, line 59 – column 2, line 20)
Regarding claim 20, Dossett discloses “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to be capable of executing the programmed instructions stored in the memory to generate a mating surface in an individualized knee replacement guide such that when the individualized knee replacement guide is applied to the patient femur during an arthroplasty surgery, a resection guide surface is aligned with the patient femur according to the recommended three-dimensional knee replacement surgery plan.” (abstract, column 1, line 59 – column 2, line 20)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McAuliffe, et al. (US 2018/0235641), Aram, et al. (US 9,131,945), Park, et al. (US 8,737,700), Park, et al. (US 8,617,171) and Burstein, et al. (US 2009/0204222) teach a system and/or method to determine a knee replacement surgery plan.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
January 8, 2026