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 . This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on December 15, 2025. Claims 1-172 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species AAA (which encompass Figures 169-175) in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-19 and 41-172 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
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.
Claims 20-40 are 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 20 recites the limitation "the working blade body" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the computing system" in lines 10 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the bone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the bone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the bone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the working blade body" in lines 5 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the sensor data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the vibration data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the vibration data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the strain data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the strain data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the temperature data" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the temperature data" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the robotic arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the sensors" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the autonomous cutting process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the plan intra-operatively" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 30, the limitation “cortical engagement/breach” is unclear. For examination purposes “cortical engagement/breach” refers to engagement and/or breach.
Regarding claim 31, the limitation “cortical engagement/breach” is unclear. For examination purposes “cortical engagement/breach” refers to engagement and/or breach.
Regarding claim 39, the limitation “sensor/navigation” is unclear. For examination purposes “sensor/navigation” refers to sensor and/or navigation.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-22, 26-28, and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Widenhouse et al. (US Publication 2018/0049820), hereinafter “Widenhouse”.
Regarding claim 20, Widenhouse discloses a cutting device (Figure 18) comprising: a working body (3040) capable of being operably connected to a source of movement (i.e. a robotic arm coupled to end effector 4000, [paragraph 0083]); a static component (3010, Figure 17A) capable of being operably connected to the source of movement [paragraph 0083], at least one static component that extends substantially parallel to the working blade body for supporting the working blade body (see Figure 17A); at least one sensor (3060, Figure 17A) attached to the static component and capable of acquiring physical data associated with the static component; and a computing device (315, Figure 1) capable of receiving the physical data [paragraph 0046]; and provide feedback to a robotic system that also communicates with the computing system, for active feedback, compensation, and outputs based on the physical data of the static component (i.e., sensor 3060 is positioned along blade 3040 to measure the forces applied on the blade 3040 by tissue 3045).
Regarding claim 21, Widenhouse discloses wherein the robotic system includes a free standing robotic arm [paragraph 0083 describes a robotic arm that moves end effector 4000, thus the working body] that holds a handpiece (4000, Figure 18).
Regarding claim 22, Widenhouse discloses wherein the robotic system includes a free standing robotic arm [paragraph 0083 describes a robotic arm that moves end effector 4000, thus the working body] that holds a guide(4000, Figure 18).
Regarding claim 26, Widenhouse discloses cutting device (Figure 18) comprising: a working body (3040) capable of being operably connected to a source of movement(i.e. a robotic arm coupled to end effector 4000, [paragraph 0083]); a static component (3010, Figure 17A) capable of being operably connected to the source of movement[paragraph 0083]; at least one static component that extends substantially parallel to the working blade body for supporting the working blade body(see Figure 17A); at least one sensor (3060, Figure 17A) attached to the static component and capable of acquiring physical data; and a computing device (315, Figure 1) capable of receiving the physical data; and controlling a robotic system to move the cutting device based on the physical data and/or navigation data(i.e., sensor 3060 is positioned along blade 3040 to measure the forces applied on the blade 3040 by tissue 3045).
Regarding claim 27, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of providing feedback (via sensor) and/or output functionality based on navigation and physical data from the static component with respect to the cutting device (i.e. physical aspects of movement (i.e. direction, velocity, etc.) [paragraph 0076]).
Regarding claim 28, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of using the navigation and/or sensor data to control one or more actuators of the robotic system that moves the cutting device (i.e., the control system can control the velocity of movement (jackhammering) of the robotic arm based on either a sensed force or the sensed velocity [paragraph 0076]).
Regarding claim 31, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of presenting, via a user interface, information about bone quality type and detection of cortical engagement and/or breach based on the vibration data [paragraph 0106].
Regarding claim 32, Widenhouse discloses further comprising a strain sensor [paragraph 0008] attached to the static component and capable of acquiring strain data to drive output functionality and/or feedback [paragraph 0084].
Regarding claim 33, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of using the strain data to inform blade tip deflection [paragraph 0084].
Regarding claim 34, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of presenting information about blade tip deflection and active feedback based on the strain data [paragraph 0084].
Regarding claim 35, Widenhouse discloses further comprising a temperature sensor [paragraph 0073] attached to the static component and capable of acquiring temperature data to drive output functionality and/or feedback.
Regarding claim 36, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of using the temperature data to inform cutting temperature to drive output functionality and/or feedback [paragraph 0073].
Regarding claim 37, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of presenting information about cutting temperature and active feedback based on the temperature data [paragraph 0073].
Regarding claim 38, Widenhouse discloses wherein the computing device is capable of controlling the robotic arm for autonomous execution of cutting relative to a predetermined plan with feedback provided by the sensors for safety mechanism, error compensation, and/or optimizing cutting parameters [paragraph 0085].
Regarding claim 39, Widenhouse discloses further wherein the computing device is capable of using sensor and/or navigation and/or pre-operative information for implementing a procedure (i.e., using the sensor data to move the robotic arm to cut the tissue [paragraph 0085].
Regarding claim 40, Widenhouse discloses wherein a user interface present information for monitoring the autonomous cutting process (i.e., displaying information to the user about the cutting [paragraph 0106]) and/or for intervention for modifications and/or adjustments to the plan intra-operatively.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhouse et al. (US Publication 2018/0049820) in view of Chi (US Publication 2021/0137613).
Regarding claim 23, Widenhouse fails to disclose wherein the robotic system includes a micro-robot attached locally to the bone that holds a handpiece.
However, Chi teaches a robotic device (1304, Figure 18) attached to the bone (1704) that holds a handpiece (1702).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Widenhouse to include a robot attached to bone as taught by Chi in order to remove the need for an optical locator to locate markers associated with the patient’s bone [paragraph 0127].
Regarding claim 24, Widenhouse fails to disclose wherein the robotic system includes a micro-robot attached locally to the bone that holds a guide.
However, Chi teaches a robotic device (1304, Figure 18) attached to the bone (1704) that holds a guide (1702).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Widenhouse to include a robot attached to bone as taught by Chi in order to remove the need for an optical locator to locate markers associated with the patient’s bone [paragraph 0127].
Regarding claim 25, Widenhouse fails to disclose wherein the robotic system includes a micro-robot attached locally to the bone that holds a guide.
However, Chi teaches a robotic device (1304, Figure 18) attached to the bone (1704) that holds a guide (1702).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Widenhouse to include a robot attached to bone as taught by Chi in order to remove the need for an optical locator to locate markers associated with the patient’s bone [paragraph 0127].
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widenhouse et al. (US Publication 2018/0049820) in view of Yoshino et al. (US Publication 2020/0108503).
Regarding claim 29, Widenhouse fails to disclose a vibration sensor attached to the static component and configured to acquire vibration data to drive output functionality and/or feedback.
Yoshino, however, teaches a vibration sensor (7) attached to a machine robot (1), wherein a controller receives input of the vibration detected by the vibration sensor about cutting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting device of Widenhouse with a vibration sensor as taught by Yoshino wherein the sensor detects vibration of the robot and outputs the detected vibration to a controller.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Widenhouse’s device discloses wherein the computing device is capable of using the vibration data to inform bone quality type and/or detection of cortical engagement and/ or breach to drive output functionality and/or feedback [paragraph 0008 the sensory assembly and controller determines the velocity or engagement of the robotic arm of Widenshouse].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA S JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-5963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8am to 4pm 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, Kevin Truong can be reached at 571-270-5963. 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.
/Diana Jones/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
/KEVIN T TRUONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3775