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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species G (figs.103-116) drawn to claims 1-5 and 9-16 in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
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 12 and 15 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 12 recites the limitation "the traction assembly" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the laterally adjustable connector" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the boom" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad U.S. Publication No. (2021/0121247 A1) and evidenced by Torrie et al. US. Publication No. (2007/0265635 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Conrad discloses a Conrad discloses a traction system capable of being utilized as a laterally positionable surgical boot support hip distractor, as evidenced by Torrie et al. in figs.1-2 and [0047, hip distraction is performed in either the Distraction Mode (FIGS. 1 and 2) or Femoral Acetabular Impingement (FAI) Mode (FIGS. 3 and 4) using a system 10 that can be attached to a standard operating table 12, such as found in hospitals and surgery centers, and that can accommodate both supine (FIGS. 1 and 3) and lateral (FIGS. 2 and 4) positioning of the patient], comprising:
a support rod of a limb holder (26, fig.1) and [0015];
a surgical boot support (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) in operable connection with the support rod; and
a laterally adjustable connector (30 and the image in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) in operable connection with the surgical boot support (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Conrad discloses the support rod (26) is a spar (as shown in fig.1) and evidenced by Torrie et al. (in fig.1, spar 102) and [0048].
With respect to claim 3, Conrad discloses the laterally adjustable connector includes at least two position adjustments via knobs (30, 30, as shown in fig.1) and [0015, The traction device 12 has a plurality of adjustment mechanisms 30 attached to the various features of the traction device 12. For example, the footrests 28 and the legs 26 have adjustments mechanisms 30 attached thereto to adjust the position of the footrests 28 along the legs 26 to accommodate the differing anatomy of various patients].
With respect to claim 4, Conrad discloses the position adjustments includes at least one of a knob (30, 30 fig.1), configured to lock the boot support with respect to the support rod. Note: a feature or function of knobs is having the capability to tighten and untightened as, such, the knob is capable of locking the boot support.
With respect to claim 11, Conrad discloses a traction assembly (16) in operable connection with the surgical boot support [0014]-[0015] and (fig.1).
With respect to claim 12, Conrad discloses traction assembly (16) being in operable connection to the surgical boot support [0014]-[0015] and (fig.1).
With respect to claim 13, Conrad discloses the laterally adjustable connector includes a boom, and wherein the traction assembly (16) being in operable connection to the surgical boot support with the boom locked in place with respect to the support rod of the limb holder (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
648
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14, regarding the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will inherently perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); (under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device) see MPEP 2112.01(1), as such, Conrad discloses a method of mounting a surgical boot to a support rod of a limb holder, the method comprising: providing a laterally positionable surgical boot support hip distractor, comprising: a support rod of a limb holder; a surgical boot support in operable connection with the support rod; and a laterally adjustable connector in operable connection with the surgical boot support; and moving the laterally adjustable connector to reposition the surgical boot support at a position laterally away from the support rod.
With respect to claim 15, Conrad discloses providing a traction assembly (16) and [0014]-[0015] and (fig.1) in operable connection to the surgical boot support, and operating the traction assembly with the boom locked in place (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below) with respect to the support rod of the limb holder [0014] and [0006, the present invention is directed to, inter alia, a traction system for automatically tracking and displaying parameters of a joint during surgery].
PNG
media_image2.png
648
890
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16, Conrad discloses a traction system capable of being utilized as a laterally positionable surgical boot support hip distractor as evidenced by Torrie et al. in figs.1-2 and [0047, hip distraction is performed in either the Distraction Mode (FIGS. 1 and 2) or Femoral Acetabular Impingement (FAI) Mode (FIGS. 3 and 4) using a system 10 that can be attached to a standard operating table 12, such as found in hospitals and surgery centers, and that can accommodate both supine (FIGS. 1 and 3) and lateral (FIGS. 2 and 4) positioning of the patient], comprising:
a support rod of a limb holder (26, fig.1) and [0015];
a surgical boot support in operable connection with the support rod (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below);
a boom providing a laterally adjustable connector in operable connection with the surgical boot support (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.1 below); and
a traction assembly (16) and [0014]-[0015] and (fig.1) in operable connection with the surgical boot support (as shown in fig.1) to provide distraction with the boom remaining in a position fixed to the support rod and without moving the support rod (as shown in the reproduced in fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
648
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keselman et al. U.S. Patent No. (5,582,379).
With respect to claim 10, Conrad substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the laterally adjustable connector includes a selectively extendable boot support positioner.
Keselman et al. however, teaches an adjustable support system for holding in place the limb of a person during surgery ([Col.2], lines 24-26) and (fig.5) comprising a boot 10 is provided with a transversely extending connecting rod 11. Preferably the connecting rod 11 is welded, or otherwise connected, to a bracket 13 fastened to the boot 10. When the connecting rod 11 is retained within the adjustable support 12, the boot 10 can generally float or freely rotate about the axis of the connecting rod 11 ([Col.7], lines 35-42).
In view of the teachings of Keselman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the distractor of Conrad by incorporating a selectively extendable boot support positioner in order for the boot to float or freely rotate about an axis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art drawn to Conrad fails to show or make obvious the claimed combinations of elements particularly the limitations as set forth in dependent claims 5 and 9 which recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art drawn to Conrad, in combination with the other elements (or steps) of the apparatus and method recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786