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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to applicant arguments filled on 05/20/2026 for application 18/636181.
Claim 1 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Detailed Action
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahfouz (US 2017/0367766 A1) in view of Chabanas et al. (US 2013/0089253 A1).
As per claim 1, a method for visualizing a morphological characteristic of a joint for planning a surgical procedure on the joint, the method comprising, at a computing system:
Mahfouz teaches:
receiving image data associated with a joint of a subject (Fig. 11-12);
generating a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the joint of the subject using the image data (Fig. 11-12 and Para. 23 wherein a colored 3d model of a joint is taught);
identifying at least one morphological characteristic of the joint based on the three-dimensional model (Fig. 31 and Para. 144 and 212 wherein visual feedback of joint characteristics is displayed) ; and
generating and displaying a visualization for providing guidance for planning for the surgical procedure on the at least one morphological characteristic of the joint (Para. 149 wherein “ the feedback may be displayed on a display associated with the surgical instrument to guide the surgeon in repositioning the instrument to arrive at the proper orientation and/or position consistent with the pre-operative surgical plan”), wherein the visualization comprises:
a three-dimensional rendering of the at least a portion of the three-dimensional model (Para. 155),
Mahfouz does not explicitly teach however Chabanas teaches:
a visual indication of the at least one morphological characteristic of the joint overlaid on a surface of the joint depicted in the three-dimensional rendering (Fig. 5 and Para. 99 wherein “Once the clock face has been determined on the femur, the location and extent of the deformed bone overgrowth is determined by overlaying the femoral head sphere SF, centered on the femoral head center H, on the 3D bone surface model in a forth preliminary step PS4. The overlay can be implemented using transparency effects, color maps of distances, or simply wire mesh for one of the femoral head sphere SF or 3D bone surface model and facets mesh for the other. The intersection of the sphere SF and the 3D bone surface model determines a 3D head-neck junction curve showing the extent of the deformed bone overgrowth area. As illustrated in FIG. 5, this 3D head-neck junction curve can be approximated by linking a succession of points Mi, each points Mi being defined within a radial hemi-plane of the clock face and indexed by a clock index i in the clock face referential”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to combine the method and system for evaluating possible shapes of a dynamic orthopedic implant using anatomical shape and kinematic shape as taught in Mahfouz with the measuring system for determining bone resection as taught in Chabanas. The well-known elements described are merely a combination of old elements, and in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the image data comprises at least one of an MRI scan and a CT scan (Para. 228).
As per claim 3, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: generating a measurement of the at least one morphological characteristic at one or more predefined locations using the three-dimensional model and a coordinate system (Para. 228).
As per claim 4, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the three-dimensional rendering comprises a visual indication of the coordinate system (Fig. 12).
As per claim 5, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising displaying a spectrum bar graph that comprises the representation of the measurement of the at least one morphological characteristic of the joint, wherein regions of the spectrum bar graph are visually-coded to indicate normal and abnormal anatomical measurement ranges (Fig. 76, Para. 275).
As per claim 6, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising displaying a coordinate system value that is associated with the representation of the measurement (Para. 179).
As per claim 7, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the visualization comprises the measurement of the characteristic of the joint that is positioned in the visualization according to the one or more predefined locations (Para. 255).
As per claim 8, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 3. Mahfouz does not explicitly teach however Chabanas teaches, wherein the coordinate system comprises clock-face lines (Fig. 3 and Para. 16). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 9, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 3. Mahfouz does not explicitly teach however Chabanas teaches method of claim 8, wherein the representation of the measurement is provided adjacent to at least one of the clock-face lines (Para. 99). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 10, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the joint is a hip joint and the measurement of the at least one morphological characteristic comprises at least one of an alpha angle and a lateral center edge angle (Para. 160 and 239).
As per claim 11, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying at least one morphological characteristic of the joint based on the three-dimensional model comprises determining that the at least one morphological characteristic deviates from a baseline anatomy by comparing at least a portion of the three-dimensional model to a baseline model (Para. 144).
As per claim 12, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 11. Mahfouz does not explicitly teach however Chabanas teaches method of claim 11, wherein the joint is a hip joint and the deviation from the baseline is associated with at least one of a cam-type impingement and a pincer-type impingement (Para. 3). The motivation to combine references is the same as seen in claim 1.
As per claim 13, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the visual indication of the at least one morphological characteristic of the joint is visually indicated according to a degree of deviation from a baseline anatomy (Para. 144 and 286) .
As per claim 14, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the visualization of the morphological characteristic of the joint comprises a heat map (Fig. 73).
As per claim 15, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the heat map indicates an amount of tissue to remove to match the baseline anatomy (Para. 222).
As per claim 16, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional rendering comprises at least one indication of a location of a threshold characteristic value in the rendering (Para. 172).
As per claim 17, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one indication comprises a curve connecting points that meet the threshold characteristic value (Para. 173).
As per claim 18, Mahfouz teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the joint is a hip joint, the characteristic is an alpha angle, and the threshold characteristic value is 55 degrees, 65 degrees, or 75 degrees (Para. 239 wherein “Thereafter, the talus is navigated to the correct flexion angle (e.g., 20 degrees) and the correct medial-lateral position”. The angle can be 55, 65, or 75).
Claims 19-30 recite substantially similar limitations as seen above and hence are rejected for similar rationale as noted above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments/amendments overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant arguments with respect to the art rejection are moot in view of new grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments.
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 MAROUN P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
MAROUN P. KANAAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/MAROUN P KANAAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights