DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krause et al. (US Patent 6,701,174) in view of Koga et al. (US Pub 2005/0256389).
With respect to claim 1, Krause discloses a computer-implemented method (fig 2, 30 and fig 4) of orthopedic fixation imagery analysis, the computer-implemented method comprising: acquiring, by one or more computing devices (fig 4, 78 and 80, first and second two dimensional images of a fixation apparatus and first and second bone segments attached thereto (fig 4, 65 and 66), wherein the first two dimensional image is captured from a first orientation (fig 4, 65) and the second two dimensional image is captured from a second orientation that is different from the first orientation (fig 4, 66); obtaining, by the one or more computing devices, imaging scene parameters based in part on respective locations of a plurality of fixator elements in the first and the second two dimensional images using the respective locations of the plurality of fixator elements (col. 20, ll. 39-65 discusses using the computer being configured to use points 170 as scene parameters); and reconstructing, by the one or more computing devices, a three dimensional representation of the first and the second bone segments with respect to the fixation apparatus based upon the imaging scene parameters (fig 4, 42). With respect to claim 2, Krause discloses wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters is based on a comparison of the respective locations of the plurality of fixator elements in the first and the second two dimensional images with corresponding physical locations of the plurality of fixator elements in three-dimensional space (fig 4, 20 in particular 43, 44 and 52). With respect to claim 6, Krause discloses further comprising identifying respective locations of a plurality of bone elements in the first and the second two dimensional images, the plurality of bone elements comprising anatomical features of the first and the second bone segments (fig 4, 42, 44 and 69). With respect to claim 7, Krause discloses wherein the three-dimensional representation is further reconstructed based upon the respective locations of the plurality of bone elements (fig 4, 44). With respect to claim 9, Krause discloses wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: identifying the respective locations of the plurality of fixator elements in the first and the second two dimensional images (fig 4, 78 and 80). With respect to claim 10, Krause discloses wherein the first and the second bone segments correspond to a fracture (abstract and fig 1).
With respect to claim 1, Krause discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: computing first and second transformation matrices.
Koga discloses wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: computing first and second transformation matrices (paragraphs 69-82 discloses using transformation matrixes to project a 3d image from two 2d images) to create a 3d image from two x-rays accurately with less skill needed (paragraph 8). With respect to claim 3, Koga discloses wherein first and second transformation matrices corresponding to the first and the second two dimensional images, respectively (paragraphs 69-82 discloses using transformation matrixes to project a 3d image from two 2d images). With respect to claim 5 wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters further comprises: decomposing the first and the second transformation matrices into the imaging scene parameters (fig 6, S6-S9). With respect to claim 8, Koga discloses wherein the first and the second orientations are not orthogonal with respect to each other (shows 60 degrees).
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Krause to include wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: computing first and second transformation matrices corresponding to the first and the second two dimensional images, respectively in view of Koga in order to create a 3d image from two x-rays accurately with less skill needed.
With respect to claim 11, Krause discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (fig 2, 36) having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising: acquiring first and second two dimensional images of a fixation apparatus and first and second bone segments attached thereto (Fig 4, 78, and 80) wherein the first two dimensional image is captured from a first orientation (fig 4, 78) and the second two dimensional image is captured from a second orientation (fig 4, 80) that is different from the first orientation; obtaining imaging scene parameters based in part on respective locations of a plurality of fixator elements in the first and the second two dimensional images (fig 4) using respective locations of the plurality of fixator elements (col. 20, ll. 39-65 discusses using the computer being configured to use points 170 as scene parameters); and reconstructing a three dimensional representation of the first and the second bone segments with respect to the fixation apparatus based upon the imaging scene parameters (fig 4, 42). With respect to claim 12, Krause discloses wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters is based on a comparison of the respective locations of the plurality of fixator elements in the first and the second two dimensional images with corresponding physical locations of the plurality of fixator elements in three-dimensional space (fig 4, 20 in particular 43, 44 and 52). With respect to claim 16, Krause discloses further comprising identifying respective locations of a plurality of bone elements in the first and the second two dimensional images, the plurality of bone elements comprising anatomical features of the first and the second bone segments (fig 4, 42, 44 and 69). With respect to claim 17, Krause discloses wherein the three-dimensional representation is further reconstructed based upon the respective locations of the plurality of bone elements (fig 4, 44). With respect to claim 19, Krause discloses wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: identifying the respective locations of the plurality of fixator elements in the first and the second two dimensional images (fig 4, 78 and 80). With respect to claim 20, Krause discloses wherein the first and the second bone segments correspond to a fracture (abstract and fig 1).
With respect to claim 11, Krause discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: computing first and second transformation matrices.
Koga discloses wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: computing first and second transformation matrices (paragraphs 69-82 discloses using transformation matrixes to project a 3d image from two 2d images) to create a 3d image from two x-rays accurately with less skill needed (paragraph 8). With respect to claim 13, Koga discloses wherein first and second transformation matrices corresponding to the first and the second two dimensional images, respectively (paragraphs 69-82 discloses using transformation matrixes to project a 3d image from two 2d images). With respect to claim 15 wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters further comprises: decomposing the first and the second transformation matrices into the imaging scene parameters (fig 6, S6-S9). With respect to claim 18, Koga discloses wherein the first and the second orientations are not orthogonal with respect to each other (shows 60 degrees).
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Krause to include wherein the obtaining of the imaging scene parameters comprises: computing first and second transformation matrices corresponding to the first and the second two dimensional images, respectively in view of Koga in order to create a 3d image from two x-rays accurately with less skill needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Krause does not disclose using transformation matrixes and Koga does not disclose using locations on the plurality of fixator elements as image locations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Krause teaches using locations on external fixator elements in 2D images and using a computer to make a 3D image (col. 20, ll. 39-65) while Koga teaches using locations in 2D images and translating them to a 3d model by using transformation matrixes (paragraph 69-82). Koga teaches using the matrixes to translate 2D points into a 3D imaging to accurately create the images with less skill needed by the x-ray technician (paragraph 8).
The rejections are deemed proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN J COTRONEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/S.J.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773