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 .
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor holding features” in claims 5 and 18. Applicant’s specification states that the sensor holding features are outwardly protruding walls 313, figure 4, ¶86 of the filed specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the column" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted to read “a column”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (US 2015/0297362).
Regarding claim 1, Singh et al. disclose a measurement device, comprising a stem (212, figure 2A) configured to couple to a bone at a proximal end portion (figures 2B, 3); a neck (214) extending outward from a distal end portion of the stem (figure 2B); a ball joint (216 + 220) coupled to the neck (figures 2A-2B), the ball joint comprising a lower housing (see figure below) and an upper housing (see figure below); wherein the lower housing comprises a center body (611) with a platform (612) at a first end of the center body (figure 6B); a circuit board (610, ¶61) with electronic circuitry (221, 231) coupled to the platform (figure 6B); and a plurality of sensors (233a-h) circumferentially arranged around the center body and spaced from the platform (figure 6A); and wherein the ball joint is configured to couple to a joint and to measure a load magnitude and location at the joint (¶64).
Regarding claim 3, Singh et al. disclose at least one battery within the ball joint (¶62, ¶72).
Regarding claim 4, Singh et al. disclose the sensors include strain gauges (¶67).
Regarding claim 5, Singh et al. disclose the lower housing further comprises sensor holding features (surfaces of 611) configured to hold the sensors at an offset height and an offset angle from the platform (¶66).
Regarding claim 7, Singh et al. disclose the sensors are coupled to flexible circuit board portions that are coupled to the circuit board (figure 6B, ¶58). Regarding claim 8, Singh et al. disclose the electronic circuitry is connected to an external antenna (¶51) positioned outside the ball joint, and wherein the external antenna is configured to communicate with a remote system (¶51, figure 4). Regarding claim 9, Singh et al. disclose the measurement device is configured to communicate with a remote system (300) and the remote system displays (318a, figure 5) the load magnitude and location on a graphical user interface (¶88-89).
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 2, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0297362) in view of Wakiyama et al. (US 2015/0272740).
Regarding claim 2, Singh et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the measurement device further comprising a shim; wherein the neck fits inside the shim and the shim fits at least partially inside an opening in the lower housing.
Wakiyama et al. disclose the use of a shim (2B, figure 7), wherein the neck (5) of the device fits inside the shim (figure 7) and the shim fits at least partially inside an opening (7) in the lower housing (8, figure 7, ¶82). The shim allows the stress concentrations to move to a place where the thickness of the head is relatively great (¶82).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the measurement device of Singh et al. to include a shim as taught by Wakiyama et al. as the shim allows the stress concentrations to move to a place where the thickness of the head is relatively great.
Regarding claim 11, Singh et al. disclose a measurement device, comprising a stem (212, figure 2A) configured to couple to a bone at a proximal end portion (figures 2B, 3); a neck (214) extending outward from a distal end portion of the stem (figure 2B); a ball joint (216, 220), the ball joint comprising a lower housing (see figure below) and an upper housing (see figure below); wherein the lower housing comprises a center body (611) with a platform (612) at a first end of the center body (figure 6B); a circuit board (610, ¶61) coupled to the platform; and three sensors (233a-h) circumferentially arranged around the center body and spaced from the platform (figure 6A); and wherein the ball joint is configured to couple to a joint and to measure a load magnitude and location at the joint (¶64).
Singh et al. fail to expressly teach or disclose a shim coupled to the neck.
Wakiyama et al. disclose the use of a shim (2B, figure 7) coupled to the neck (5) of the device (figure 7). The shim allows the stress concentrations to move to a place where the thickness of the head is relatively great (¶82).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the measurement device of Singh et al. to include a shim as taught by Wakiyama et al. as the shim allows the stress concentrations to move to a place where the thickness of the head is relatively great. Regarding claim 12, Singh et al. in view of Wakiyama et al. disclose the shim includes release arms (sections which form the slits 12) that are accessible through gaps in the lower housing (figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Singh et al. disclose at least one battery within the ball joint positioned on the side of a column (¶62, ¶72).
Regarding claim 16, Singh et al. disclose a measurement device, comprising a stem (212, figure 2A) configured to couple to a bone at a proximal end portion (figure 2B, 3); a neck (214) extending outward from a distal end portion of the stem (figure 2B); a ball joint (216, 220) coupled to the shim, the ball joint comprising a lower housing (see figure below) and an upper housing (see figure below); wherein the lower housing comprises a center body (611) with a platform (612) at a first end of the center body (figure 6B); a circuit board (610, ¶61) with electronic circuitry (221, 231) coupled to the platform; and three sensors (233a-h) circumferentially arranged around the center body (figure 6B); wherein the three sensors are at an offset height and an offset angle from the platform (figure 6B); and wherein the ball joint is configured to couple to a joint and to measure a load magnitude and location at the joint (¶64).
Singh et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the measurement device further comprising a shim; wherein the neck fits inside the shim and the shim fits at least partially inside an opening in the lower housing. Wakiyama et al. disclose the use of a shim (2B, figure 7), wherein the neck (5) of the device fits inside the shim (figure 7) and the shim fits at least partially inside an opening (7) in the lower housing (8, figure 7, ¶82). The shim allows the stress concentrations to move to a place where the thickness of the head is relatively great (¶82).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the measurement device of Singh et al. to include a shim as taught by Wakiyama et al. as the shim allows the stress concentrations to move to a place where the thickness of the head is relatively great.
Regarding claim 17, Singh et al. disclose the sensors are coupled to flexible circuit board portions (¶61), and wherein the flexible circuit board portions are coupled to the circuit board (figure 6B, ¶61).
Regarding claim 18, Singh et al. disclose the lower housing further comprises sensor holding features (surfaces of 611) configured to hold the sensors at the offset height and angle (¶66).
PNG
media_image1.png
531
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0297362) in view of Stein et al. (US 2014/0135773)
Regarding claim 10, Singh et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose the graphical user interface includes a display of the ball joint with concentric rings configured to indicate a distance of the force from the center of the upper housing.
Stein et al. disclose the use of a graphical user interface that which includes a display (2016, figures 20-21) which displays a ball joint with concentric rings (4014, 4016, figures 21) the concentric circles indicate that the example medical instrument is positioned precisely at the target location and aligned precisely with the target orientation in all three Cartesian coordinates aligned with the zenith and tangents to the surface of the earth.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the graphical user interface includes a display of the ball joint with concentric rings as taught by Stein et al. as the concentric circles indicate that the example medical instrument is positioned precisely at the target location and aligned precisely with the target orientation in all three Cartesian coordinates aligned with the zenith and tangents to the surface of the earth.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0297362) in view of Wakiyama et al. (US 2015/0272740) in view of Stein et al. (US 2014/0135773).
Regarding claim 15, Singh et al. disclose the measurement device is configured to communicate with a remote system (300, figures 4-5), wherein the remote system is configured to display the load magnitude and location on a graphical user interface (¶88-89). However, Singh et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose the graphical user interface includes a display of the ball joint with concentric rings configured to indicate a distance of the force from the center of the upper housing.
Stein et al. disclose the use of a graphical user interface that which includes a display (2016, figures 20-21) which displays a ball joint with concentric rings (4014, 4016, figures 21) the concentric circles indicate that the example medical instrument is positioned precisely at the target location and aligned precisely with the target orientation in all three Cartesian coordinates aligned with the zenith and tangents to the surface of the earth.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the graphical user interface includes a display of the ball joint with concentric rings as taught by Stein et al. as the concentric circles indicate that the example medical instrument is positioned precisely at the target location and aligned precisely with the target orientation in all three Cartesian coordinates aligned with the zenith and tangents to the surface of the earth.
Regarding claim 20, Singh et al. disclose wherein the measurement device is configured to communicate with a remote system (300, figure 4-5) and the remote system displays the load magnitude and location on a graphical user interface (¶88-89). However, Singh et al. fails to expressly teach or disclose the graphical user interface includes a display of the ball joint with concentric rings configured to indicate a distance of the force from the center of the upper housing.
Stein et al. disclose the use of a graphical user interface that which includes a display (2016, figures 20-21) which displays a ball joint with concentric rings (4014, 4016, figures 21) the concentric circles indicate that the example medical instrument is positioned precisely at the target location and aligned precisely with the target orientation in all three Cartesian coordinates aligned with the zenith and tangents to the surface of the earth. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the graphical user interface includes a display of the ball joint with concentric rings as taught by Stein et al. as the concentric circles indicate that the example medical instrument is positioned precisely at the target location and aligned precisely with the target orientation in all three Cartesian coordinates aligned with the zenith and tangents to the surface of the earth.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0297362) in view of Roche et al. (US 2021/0315715).
Regarding claim 6, Singh et al. disclose the claimed invention except for lower housing snap features on the lower housing; upper housing snap features on the upper housing; wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are both equal in number to the number of sensors; wherein the lower housing and the upper housing are coupled together with the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features; and wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are aligned with the sensors.
Roche et al. disclose a lower housing (222) having lower housing snap features (278) and an upper housing (220) having upper housing snap features (320), wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are both equal in number to the number of sensors (¶115, ¶126); wherein the lower housing and the upper housing are coupled together with the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features (figure 16); and wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are aligned with the sensors (figure 16) as it is a known configuration for coupling the upper and lower housing to one another.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the upper and lower housings of Singh et al. to have snap features as taught by Roch et al. as it is a known configuration for coupling the upper and lower housing to one another.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2015/0297362) in view of Wakiyama et al. (US 2015/0272740) in view of Roche et al. (US 2021/0315715).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Singh et al. disclose the claimed invention except for lower housing snap features on the lower housing; upper housing snap features on the upper housing; wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are both equal in number to the number of sensors; wherein the lower housing and the upper housing are coupled together with the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features; and wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are aligned with the sensors.
Roche et al. disclose a lower housing (222) having lower housing snap features (278) and an upper housing (220) having upper housing snap features (320), wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are both equal in number to the number of sensors (¶115, ¶126); wherein the lower housing and the upper housing are coupled together with the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features (figure 16); and wherein the lower housing snap features and the upper housing snap features are aligned with the sensors (figure 16) as it is a known configuration for coupling the upper and lower housing to one another.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have constructed the upper and lower housings of Singh et al. to have snap features as taught by Roch et al. as it is a known configuration for coupling the upper and lower housing to one another.
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