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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Please direct attention to rejection below, specifically reference Sherman regarding the amended limitation of the surgical robotic manipulator having one or more force sensors, and the controller being configured to determine that the cement has reached the predetermined cure state based on load feedback measured by the one or more force sensors.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub No. 2021/0000556 to Timperley et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0298668 to Sherman et al.
As to Claim 1, Timperley discloses a robotic system [0008, 0071]. The system comprises a surgical robotic manipulator (1402), an end effector (20) coupled to the manipulator [0131], and a controller (60) configured to cause the end effector to hold an implant (604) in a final implant position within a patient's anatomy (within 903) until the controller determines that cement located adjacent to the implant has reached a predetermined cure state (described in [0131-0132]).
As to Claim 2, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the predetermined cure state is a completely cured state [0131-0132].
As to Claim 3, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the controller (60) is configured to cause the end effector (20) to move in synchrony with a portion of the patient's anatomy [0130] within which the final implant position is located while holding the implant in the final implant position (final insertion position of [0131]).
As to Claim 4, Timperley discloses a robotic system comprising a localizer (44) configured to monitor a position of the portion of the patient's anatomy and transmit signals representative of the position to the controller [0048, 0051, 0085].
As to Claim 5, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the controller (60) is configured to cause the end effector (20) to press against the implant with a predetermined force while holding the implant in the final position [0131].
As to Claim 6, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the determination that cement located adjacent to the implant (20) has reached the predetermined cure state is based upon passage of a predetermined amount of time while the end effector holds the implant (604) in the final position (described in [0009, 0131]).
As to Claim 7, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the controller (60) is configured to automatically release the implant (604) from the end effector (20) when the controller (60) determines that the cement located adjacent to the implant has cured [0132].
As to Claim 8, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the controller (60) is configured to cause the end effector (20) to lock in place such that the end effector is prevented from moving and maintains the implant in the final position until the controller determines that cement located adjacent to the implant has reached the predetermined cure state (hold described in [0129, 0131]).
As to Claim 9, Timperley discloses a robotic system wherein the controller (60) is configured to use the end effector to press the implant along an insertion path to a depth to achieve a desired thickness of the cement between the implant and the patient's anatomy (via positioning tool 1402, [0129]).
As to Claim 10, Timperley discloses a robotic system comprising a positioning tool (1402) provided on the end effector (20), wherein the positioning tool is configured to receive an implant specifically for knee replacement surgery (knee replacement procedure described in [0068, 0073]).
As to Claim 11, Timperley discloses a method (400) of placing an orthopedic implant [0015-0016, 0068]. The method comprises preparing a bone (404) to receive an implant in a final implant position within the bone [0069], including applying cement (412) to a cavity in the bone [0070], and employing a robotic surgical system [0008, 0071] to execute an automated process of using an end effector (20) to hold the implant (604) in the cavity until the cement has reached a predetermined cure state [0071, 0077].
As to Claim 12, Timperley discloses a method wherein the implant is an implant for knee replacement surgery (knee replacement procedure described in [0068, 0073]).
As to Claim 13, Timperley discloses a method wherein the predetermined cure state may be a completely cured state [0131-0132].
As to Claim 14, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated process includes controlling the end effector (20) to move in synchrony with a portion of a patient's anatomy [0130] within which the final implant position is located while holding the implant in the final implant position (final insertion position of [0131]).
As to Claim 15, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated process includes controlling the end effector (20) to press against the implant with a predetermined force while holding the implant in the final position [0131].
As to Claim 16, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated process includes an automated determination of whether the cement has reached the predetermined cure state [0071, 0131-0132].
As to Claim 17, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated determination is based upon passage of a predetermined amount of time while the end effector (20) holds the implant (604) in the final position (described in [0009, 0131]).
As to Claim 18, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated process includes automatically releasing the implant (604) from the end effector (20) when a controller determines that the cement located adjacent to the implant has cured [0132].
As to Claim 19, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated process includes locking the end effector (20) in place such that the end effector is prevented from moving and maintains the implant in the final position until a controller determines that cement located adjacent to the implant has reached the predetermined cure state (hold described in [0129, 0131]).
As to Claim 20, Timperley discloses a method wherein the automated process includes using the end effector (20) to press the implant (406) along an insertion path to a depth to achieve a desired thickness of the cement between the implant and the bone (via positioning tool 1402, [0129]).
As to Claims 1-20, Timperley discloses the claimed invention except for the surgical robotic manipulator having one or more force sensors, and the controller being configured to determine that the cement has reached the predetermined cure state based on load feedback measured by the one or more force sensors.
Sherman discloses a robotic system (100, [0035]) and method (900, [0061]) wherein a surgical robotic manipulator (110, [0035]) has one or more force sensors (118, [0042-0043]), and the controller (120) being configured to determine that the cement has reached the predetermined cure state based on load feedback measured by the one or more force sensors [0078] in order to provide indication that the implant has been properly secured to the desired location due to curing of the bone cement [0078].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the robotic system of Timperley with the force sensor modification of Sherman in order to provide indication that the implant has been properly secured to the desired location due to curing of the bone cement.
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.
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 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 CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-272-4705. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BECCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights