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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 01 June 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 11, 13, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 currently stand pending in the application.
The amendments to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the previous claim objections, which are repeated below in relevant part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Lorio et al. (US 9,050,197), Applicant contends (p. 7) that Lorio does not disclose “a body linked to the base for rotation relative thereto” that “includes a recess and a slot therein and a first indicia along a first face of the body adjacent the slot.” The Office Action maps the claimed body to “120 and 110A.” Applicant contends that the sizer slider 120 in Lorio does not rotate but only translates relative to base 146 by a rod 118 via the aperture 192. Examiner respectfully submits that the claim does not require part 120 (part of the body) to rotate relative to part 110A (part of the body), only that the body is linked to the base for rotation relative thereto, i.e. the body rotates relative to the base. Because the parts 120 and 110A of the body in Lorio are coupled together via the rod, rotation of part 110A relative to the base 201 would also result in rotation of part 120 relative to the base 201 since the parts of the body do not rotate relative to each other and would rotate as a whole together relative to the base. Thus, the body as a whole, comprising parts 120 and 110A, rotates relative to the base 201.
Applicant contends (p. 7-8) that Lorio’s sizer body 110A and sizer slider 120 are separate components that translate relative to each other. Applicant contends that the Office Action implies that they comprise a single component. Applicant contends that the Office Action’s amalgamation of “120 and 110A” into a single claimed body disregards relative translation of the components. Examiner respectfully submits that the term “body” is a broad term that is commonly understood to mean the main mass of a thing, or a substantial amount of something, or a collection of something. The term “body” does not itself require a monolithic structure or that no parts of the body are movable relative to each other. The body of a human includes the bones, flesh, and organs, which are all separate components that may move or function separately. The Office Action does not imply that “120 and 110A” comprise a single component, but only that together they comprise the “body.” The relative translation of the components of the body does not mean that the components cannot be together considered a body. As to the argument that the components translate and do not rotate relative to each other, this was addressed above in that the claim does not require the parts of the body to rotate relative to each other, but only that the body is linked to the base for rotation relative thereto, i.e. the body rotates relative to the base. Examiner also notes that even if only the component 120 is interpreted as the body, this body is linked, via 110A and rod 118, to the base 201 for rotation relative to the base, since 110A rotates relative to the base and 120 and 110A rotate together as coupled via the rod 118.
Applicant contends (p. 9) that the Office Action combines two components that are separate, with separate functions and independent degrees of freedom as the “body” as claimed. As above, Examiner respectfully submits that the term “body” is a broad term that is commonly understood to mean the main mass of a thing, or a substantial amount of something, or a collection of something. The term “body” does not itself require a monolithic structure or that no parts of the body are movable relative to each other. This “body” in Lorio comprises the recited recess, slot, and first indicia, as detailed in the Office Action. Examiner also notes that even if only the component 120 is interpreted as the body, this body is linked, via 110A and rod 118, to the base 201 for rotation relative to the base, since 110A rotates relative to the base and 120 and 110A rotate together as coupled via the rod 118. Component 120 itself comprises a recess, slot, and first indicia, and is linked to the base, via 110A and rod 118, for rotation relative thereto. Applicant also concedes that in Lorio, the rotation is between the AP sizer assembly 102A and the tensor frame 201. Examiner notes that Lorio discloses that the AP sizer assembly 102A includes sizer body 110A, sizer slider 120, and sizer stylus 130 (col. 4 / lines 33-36). Therefore, Lorio discloses that 110A and 120 (the “body”), as part of the AP sizer assembly 102A, rotates relative to the tensor frame 201 (the “base”).
Applicant contends (p. 9-10) that the recess and slot mapping fails because the recess and slot in Lorio are in the sizer slider 120 and not in any “body” linked to the base for rotation. As above, Examiner respectfully submits that the body comprises 120 and 110A and thus the body comprises the recess, slot, and first indicia on the component 120. Since the term “body” does not itself require a monolithic structure or that no parts of the body are movable relative to each other, the body in Lorio can comprise 120 and 110A. As also noted above, even if only the component 120 is interpreted as the body, this body is linked, via 110A and rod 118, to the base 201 for rotation relative to the base, since 110A rotates relative to the base and 120 and 110A rotate together as coupled via the rod 118. Component 120 itself comprises a recess, slot, and first indicia, and is linked to the base, via 110A and rod 118, for rotation relative thereto.
Applicant contends (p. 10) that the slot is not labeled in Lorio with a reference numeral identified by the Office Action and the Office Action does not point to a passage of Lorio that describes any such slot. Examiner respectfully submits that the Office Action identifies the slot as a slot that opens into 180 on the first face of 120. The first face of the body is also where the first indicia 184 are disposed. As seen in FIG. 3 of Lorio, the first face of component 120 of the body, where the first indicia 184 are disposed, has a slot that opens into recess 180. FIG. 1 of Lorio shows that through this slot, the sleeve 138 can be seen. Sleeve 138 is received in recess 180 (FIG. 3), and therefore the slot is a through slot that opens through the first face of component 120 of the body and into recess 180.
Applicant contends (p. 10-11) that the adjustment mapping and the rotation it produces are between different components than claimed. Applicant contends that the dial 272 in Lorio doesn’t rotate the slider body 120 in any way relative to the base 146 as these two items are coupled together with the rod 118. As above, Examiner respectfully submits that the slider body 120, as part of the claimed “body,” rotates relative to base 201, using the dial 272 (col. 5 / lines 62-66). The Office Action does not state that the components 120 and 110A of the body rotate relative to each other. Applicant further contends that the paddles 162 are maintained in a stable position on the tibia 80 or spacer block 60 such that the slider body 120 and the base 146 of Lorio is stable, i.e. rotation of the dial 272 separates the tensor frame 201 from the sizer body 110A and tensions the joint by moving the femur away from the tibia. Examiner respectfully submits that the dial causes relative rotation between the base 201 and the body including 110A to change the size of gap g (FIG. 2). As seen in FIG. 2 of Lorio, the base 201 tilts relative to the body (120 and 110A) about bolt 203, as limited by the angled faces of surface 150.
Applicant contends that Lorio’s rotation mechanism is configured for ligament balancing in tension, not for indicating rotation of the femur. Examiner respectfully submits that indicating a rotation of the femur is interpreted as language of intended use, and because Lorio discloses the claimed structural limitations, Lorio is fully capable of performing such intended use. The third indicia 286 is fully capable of indicating a rotation of the femur since it is a rotational scale and the amount of rotation required for ligament balancing or equalizing the gaps is based on the rotation of the femur. The citations of Lorio recited on p. 12 of the Arguments also describe that Lorio’s third indicia 286 is an angular scale calibrated to show the angle of relative rotation between the body at 110A and the base 201, which indicates a rotation of the femur because the feet 210M, 210L of the base 201 contact the femur.
Applicant contends (p. 13) that the angular scale 286 in Lorio indicates the angle of relative rotation between the sizer body and the tensor frame. Applicant contends that the tensor frame 201 is not a “base” in the sense of the claim, because the base of the present application has paddles that seat against the condyles of the femur. Examiner respectfully submits that the feet 210M, 210L of the tensor frame 201 are also paddles that seat against the condyles of the femur (col. 6 / lines 21-24). Applicant contends that Lorio’s tensor frame is not equivalent to the claimed base, which is configured to seat against and reference the condyles, not to be screwed to a resected femoral surface. Examiner respectfully submits that the feet of Lorio’s tensor frame (the “base”) do seat against and reference the condyles. The claim does not require the base to not be screwed to a resected femoral surface. In fact, the instant application also discloses that the base 12 has apertures 128A,B to fixate the base to the femur (par. [0092] of the published application).
Applicant contends that the third indicia 286 in Lorio is calibrated to show the angle of relative rotation between the sizer body and the tensor frame, not “a rotation of the femur.” As above, Examiner respectfully submits that the third indicia 286 is fully capable of indicating a rotation of the femur since it is a rotational scale and the amount of rotation required for ligament balancing or equalizing the gaps is based on the rotation of the femur. Lorio’s third indicia 286 is an angular scale calibrated to show the angle of relative rotation between the body at 110A and the base 201, which indicates a rotation of the femur because the feet 210M, 210L of the base 201 contact the femur.
Arguments as to claim 13 are addressed as above.
As to claim 12, Applicant contends (p. 15) that the optimization rationale is built on the same mischaracterized architecture, and that Lorio’s relative rotation between 110A and 201 is rotation produced to balance ligament tension between the sizer body 110A and the tensor frame 201, not rotation of the claimed body relative to the claimed base based on the rotation of the femur. These arguments regarding what can be considered the claimed body and the claimed base, and the intended use, are addressed above. Applicant concedes that optimization of Lorio’s transmission ratio would at most change the angle through which the sizer body rotates relative to the tensor frame during ligament balancing. Since the sizer body 110A is part of the claimed “body” and the tensor frame 201 is the claimed “base” in the rejections, then this would change the angle through which the “body” rotates relative to the “base.”
Applicant contends that Lorio does not indicate that 18 degrees of body to base rotation is a recognized objective. Examiner respectfully submits that Lorio discloses a range of rotation transmission ratio (about 5 to about 20), which is a calculated ratio between the rotation angle of the dial and the relative rotation between the body and the base. Knowing the rotation angle of the dial, there is thus a set range of relative rotation between the body and the base as calculated from the disclosed range of rotation transmission ratio. In other words, if x/y=z, and x is a known value and z is a known range, then the possible values of y will also be in a range. The claimed body to base rotation (“y”) is within the range as calculated from the x and z disclosed by Lorio. The claimed value of body to base rotation is within the range disclosed by Lorio. The particular claimed value within the disclosed range in Lorio would have been obvious since this falls within the range of the rotation transmission ratio disclosed by Lorio, and since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: improper antecedence and grammar. Appropriate correction is required. The following amendments are suggested:
Claim 13 / line 6: “and a slot”
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.
(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 1, 3, 4, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 9,050,197 to Lorio et al. (hereinafter, “Lorio”).
As to claim 1, Lorio discloses an orthopedic instrument for a knee arthroplasty, FIGS. 1-8, the instrument comprising: a base (201) having one or more paddles (210M, 210L) configured to seat against and reference one or both of a medial condyle and a lateral condyle of a femur (col. 6 / lines 21-24), FIGS. 7-8; a body (120 and 110A) linked to the base for rotation relative thereto (col. 4 / lines 33-34), FIG. 1, wherein the body includes a recess (180) and a slot (slot that opens into 180 on the first face of 120) therein and a first indicia (184) along a first face of the body adjacent the slot (col. 4 / lines 59-61; col. 6 / lines 44-48), FIG. 3; a post (136, 138) received in the recess and moveable relative to the body (col. 4 / lines 62-65), wherein the post has a second indicia (set screw shown in the exploded view of FIG. 3 that passes through the slot to enter the hole at the base of 138) used with the first indicia to determine a posterior size of the femur (col. 4 / line 65 – col. 5 / line 2), shown in another embodiment in FIGS. 9 and 16; and an adjustment mechanism (260 and 270) having a third indicia (286) configured to indicate a rotation of the femur (col. 5 / line 36 – col. 6 / line 15), wherein the adjustment mechanism is configured to rotate the body relative to the base (the body and the base rotate relative to each other, col. 4 / lines 33-34) to a desired orientation based upon the rotation of the femur.
As to claim 3, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a dial (272) with a handle (274) configured for hand adjustment of the dial by a surgeon (col. 5 / lines 42-45), FIGS. 1 and 3.
As to claim 4, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 1, wherein the post comprises an assembly including an outer sleeve (138), an inner shaft (136) and a cap (head of 136), wherein the outer sleeve translates but is rotationally fixed relative to the body (due to the set screw that slides in the slot of the body at 120) but the inner shaft is configured for rotation relative to the outer sleeve and the body (col. 4 / lines 63-65).
As to claim 8, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 4, wherein the outer sleeve is rotationally fixed relative to the body by a projection (set screw) that defines the second indicia, wherein the projection is captured in the slot, shown in the exploded view in FIG. 3.
As to claim 9, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 1, wherein the body (120 and 110A) includes a plurality of guide apertures (holes through 142s on 110A) therein (col. 6 / lines 37-39), FIGS. 1-3, and the base (201) includes a second plurality of guide apertures (207) therein (col. 6 / lines 19-21), FIGS. 1-3.
As to claim 10, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 1, wherein the base includes a recess (circular recess in 220), a pawl (226) and a slot (230) (col. 5 / lines 52-61), FIG. 6, wherein the adjustment mechanism is a dial (272) that is rotatably inserted in the recess and configured to selectively engage the pawl with a ratchet (278) (col. 5 / lines 48-58), and wherein the slot (230) is configured to receive an arm (264) that links the base to the body (col. 5 / line 59 – col. 6 / line 3), FIGS. 3 and 5.
As to claim 11, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 10, wherein the arm (264) is engaged by the dial (272) and travels within an arcuate groove (276) within the dial (col. 5 / line 62 – col. 6 / line 3), FIG. 5.
As to claim 13, Lorio discloses an orthopedic instrument for a knee arthroplasty, FIGS. 1-8, the instrument comprising: a base (201) having one or more paddles (210M, 210L) configured to seat against and reference one or both of a medial condyle and a lateral condyle of a femur (col. 6 / lines 21-24), FIGS. 7-8; a body (120 and 110A) linked to the base for rotation relative thereto (col. 4 / lines 33-34), FIG. 1, wherein the body includes a recess (180) and slot (slot that opens into 180 on the first face of 120) therein and a first indicia (184) along a first face of the body adjacent the slot (col. 4 / lines 59-61; col. 6 / lines 44-48), FIG. 3; a post assembly (136, 138) received in the recess and moveable relative to the body (col. 4 / lines 62-65), wherein the post assembly includes an outer sleeve (138), an inner shaft (136) and a cap (head of 136), wherein the outer sleeve translates but is rotationally fixed relative to the body (due to the set screw that slides in the slot of the body at 120) but the inner shaft is configured for rotation relative to the outer sleeve and the body (col. 4 / lines 63-65), and wherein the post assembly has a second indicia (set screw shown in the exploded view of FIG. 3 that passes through the slot to enter the hole at the base of 138) used with the first indicia to determine a posterior size of the femur (col. 4 / line 65 – col. 5 / line 2), shown in another embodiment in FIGS. 9 and 16; and a stylus (130) coupled to the post by the cap, FIG. 1, and moveable relative thereto (at least for insertion).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorio.
Lorio is silent as to wherein the body via the adjustment mechanism is capable of eighteen degrees of rotation, inclusive, relative to the base.
Lorio contemplates that the actual rotation angle of the dial (272) is “x” and the relative rotation between the body (at 110A) and the base (201) is “y”, then a rotation transmission ratio is equal to "x" divided by "y" where a rotation transmission ratio of about 5 to about 20 can be used (col. 6 / lines 4-15). As shown in FIG. 7, the actual rotation angle of the dial is about 140 degrees (“x”=140, where the third indicia 286 spans about 140 degrees for equivalent rotation of the dial).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a rotation transmission ratio of about 7.77, since this falls within the range of the rotation transmission ratio disclosed by Lorio, and since discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Then, solving for “y” where x/y=7.77 and “x”=140 results in y=18 degrees. Therefore, the relative rotation between the body (at 110A) and the base (201) is 18 degrees.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorio in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,275,603 to Ferrante et al. (hereinafter, “Ferrante”), U.S. Patent No. US 7,175,630 to Farling et al. (hereinafter, “Farling”), and U.S. Patent No. US 8,734,453 to Tuttle et al. (hereinafter, “Tuttle”).
As to claim 2, Lorio is silent as to further comprising a plurality of retention mechanisms each comprising a ball and spring assembly, wherein the plurality of retention mechanisms are positioned between various components including at least the base and the body, the post and the body and the post and a stylus.
Ferrante teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a base (14) and a body (guide means including flange 49) linked to the base for rotation relative thereto (col. 3 / lines 29-31), FIG. 2, further comprising a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (38; a ball plunger is a spring loaded ball) positioned between the base and the body (col. 3 / lines 44-53) to releasably lock the base and the body relative to each other in a particular angular position.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a spring loaded ball, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the base and the body in Lorio to releasably lock the base and the body relative to each other in a particular angular position, so that a certain amount of excess force is required to overcome the pressure exerted by the ball and spring assembly to prevent unintended and undesired relative movement of the base and body, as taught by Ferrante. Lorio’s base would be provided with a ball and spring assembly protruding out of a face facing the body (at 110A), and the body would be provided with indents as taught by Ferrante in a face facing the base, so that the ball and spring assembly engages one of the indents to releasably lock the base and the body in that particular rotational/angular position.
Farling teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a body (100) that includes a recess (130), FIG. 1; a post (202) received in the recess and moveable relative to the body; further comprising a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (138, biased ball detent, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post and the body to create a frictional force to help maintain the post in a user selected position while permitting easy readjustment (col. 2 / lines 31-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a biased ball detent, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post and the body in Lorio to create a frictional force to help maintain the post in a user selected position while permitting easy readjustment, as taught by Farling. Lorio’s body (at 120) would be provided with a ball and spring assembly protruding into the recess that receives the post, to be biased against a side of the post when inserted therein to create the frictional force to help maintain the post in a user selected position while permitting easy readjustment.
Tuttle teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a post (101) and a stylus (100), and a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a ball plunger is a spring loaded ball) positioned between the post and the stylus (col. 29 / lines 2-5), FIG. 3P, to selectively engage the stylus to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a spring loaded ball, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post and the stylus in Lorio to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post, so that a certain amount of excess force is required to overcome the pressure exerted by the ball and spring assembly to prevent unintended and undesired relative movement of the stylus, as taught by Tuttle. Lorio’s cap on the top of the post would be provided with an aperture that receives the spring loaded ball which protrudes out of the aperture, and Lorio’s stylus would be provided with a plurality of detents on the inferior face of the stylus facing the spring loaded ball in the aperture of the cap, so that the spring loaded ball engages one of the detents to releasably lock the stylus in the particular longitudinal position with respect to the cap and post.
Claims 5-7, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorio in view of Tuttle.
As to claim 5, Lorio discloses further comprising a stylus (130) coupled to the post by the cap, FIG. 1, and moveable relative thereto (at least for insertion).
As to claim 6, Lorio discloses wherein the cap includes one or more grooves (recesses under projections on either side of/forming the dovetail groove) and one or more projections (projections on either side of/forming the dovetail groove), and wherein the stylus includes one or more lateral projections (longitudinally extending edges) each configured to be received in one of the one or more grooves, FIGS. 1-3.
Lorio is silent as to wherein the cap includes an aperture that receives a ball, and wherein the stylus includes a plurality of detents each configured to be engaged by the ball (claim 5); wherein the inner shaft is configured to retain a spring that engages the ball, wherein the ball is biased by the spring against the stylus (claim 7).
Tuttle teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a post (101) and a stylus (100), and a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a ball plunger is a spring loaded ball) positioned between the post and the stylus (col. 29 / lines 2-5), FIG. 3P, to selectively engage the stylus to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post. Tuttle teaches the stylus includes a plurality of detents each configured to be engaged by the ball, FIG. 3P, wherein the ball is biased against the stylus.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a spring loaded ball, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post and the stylus in Lorio to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post, so that a certain amount of excess force is required to overcome the pressure exerted by the ball and spring assembly to prevent unintended and undesired relative movement of the stylus, as taught by Tuttle. Lorio’s cap on the top of the post would be provided with an aperture that receives the spring loaded ball which protrudes out of the aperture, and Lorio’s stylus would be provided with a plurality of detents on the inferior face of the stylus facing the spring loaded ball in the aperture of the cap, so that the spring loaded ball engages one of the detents to releasably lock the stylus in the particular longitudinal position with respect to the cap and post. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spring element retained in the inner shaft, since the cap comprises the head of the inner shaft and the ball protrudes, by spring force, out of the aperture in the cap, so that the spring element would be proximal to the ball, inside the inner shaft, to bias the ball outward from the inner shaft/cap on the head of the inner shaft.
As to claim 15, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 14, wherein the cap includes one or more grooves (recesses under projections on either side of/forming the dovetail groove) and one or more projections (projections on either side of/forming the dovetail groove), and wherein the stylus includes one or more lateral projections (longitudinally extending edges) each configured to be received in one of the one or more grooves, FIGS. 1-3.
As to claim 17, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 16, wherein the outer sleeve is rotationally fixed relative to the body by a projection (set screw) that defines the second indicia, wherein the projection is captured in the slot, shown in the exploded view in FIG. 3.
Lorio is silent as to wherein the cap includes an aperture that receives a ball, and wherein the stylus includes a plurality of detents each configured to be engaged by the ball (claim 14); wherein the inner shaft is configured to retain a spring that engages the ball, wherein the ball is biased by the spring against the stylus (claim 16).
Tuttle teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a post (101) and a stylus (100), and a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a ball plunger is a spring loaded ball) positioned between the post and the stylus (col. 29 / lines 2-5), FIG. 3P, to selectively engage the stylus to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post. Tuttle teaches the stylus includes a plurality of detents each configured to be engaged by the ball, FIG. 3P, wherein the ball is biased against the stylus.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a spring loaded ball, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post and the stylus in Lorio to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post, so that a certain amount of excess force is required to overcome the pressure exerted by the ball and spring assembly to prevent unintended and undesired relative movement of the stylus, as taught by Tuttle. Lorio’s cap on the top of the post would be provided with an aperture that receives the spring loaded ball which protrudes out of the aperture, and Lorio’s stylus would be provided with a plurality of detents on the inferior face of the stylus facing the spring loaded ball in the aperture of the cap, so that the spring loaded ball engages one of the detents to releasably lock the stylus in the particular longitudinal position with respect to the cap and post. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the spring element retained in the inner shaft, since the cap comprises the head of the inner shaft and the ball protrudes, by spring force, out of the aperture in the cap, so that the spring element would be proximal to the ball, inside the inner shaft, to bias the ball outward from the inner shaft/cap on the head of the inner shaft.
As to claim 19, Lorio discloses an orthopedic instrument for a knee arthroplasty, FIGS. 1-8, the instrument comprising: a base (201) having one or more paddles (210M, 210L) configured to seat against and reference one or both of a medial condyle and a lateral condyle of a femur (col. 6 / lines 21-24), FIGS. 7-8; a body (120 and 110A) linked to the base for rotation relative thereto (col. 4 / lines 33-34), FIG. 1, wherein the body includes a recess (180) and a slot (slot that opens into 180 on the first face of 120) therein and a first indicia (184) along a first face of the body adjacent the slot (col. 4 / lines 59-61; col. 6 / lines 44-48), FIG. 3; a post (136, 138) received in the recess and moveable relative to the body (col. 4 / lines 62-65), wherein the post has a second indicia (set screw shown in the exploded view of FIG. 3 that passes through the slot to enter the hole at the base of 138) used with the first indicia to determine a posterior size of the femur (col. 4 / line 65 – col. 5 / line 2), shown in another embodiment in FIGS. 9 and 16; a stylus (130) coupled to the post and moveable relative thereto (at least for insertion); an adjustment mechanism (260 and 270) having a third indicia (286) configured to indicate a rotation of the femur (col. 5 / line 36 – col. 6 / line 15), wherein the adjustment mechanism is configured to rotate the body relative to the base (the body and the base rotate relative to each other, col. 4 / lines 33-34) to a desired orientation based upon the rotation of the femur.
As to claim 20, Lorio discloses the instrument of claim 19, wherein the post includes a cap (head of 136), wherein the cap includes one or more grooves (recesses under projections on either side of/forming the dovetail groove) and one or more projections (projections on either side of/forming the dovetail groove), and wherein the stylus includes one or more lateral projections (longitudinally extending edges) each configured to be received in one of the one or more grooves, FIGS. 1-3.
Lorio is silent as to a ball and spring assembly configured to retain the stylus with the post (claim 19); wherein the cap has an aperture that receives the ball of the ball and spring assembly, wherein the stylus includes a plurality of detents each configured to be engaged by the ball (claim 20).
Tuttle teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a post (101) and a stylus (100), and a ball and spring assembly (a ball plunger is a spring loaded ball) positioned between the post and the stylus (col. 29 / lines 2-5), FIG. 3P, to selectively engage the stylus to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post. Tuttle teaches the stylus includes a plurality of detents each configured to be engaged by the ball, FIG. 3P, wherein the ball is biased against the stylus.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a spring loaded ball, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post and the stylus in Lorio to releasably lock the stylus in position with respect to the post, so that a certain amount of excess force is required to overcome the pressure exerted by the ball and spring assembly to prevent unintended and undesired relative movement of the stylus, as taught by Tuttle. Lorio’s cap on the top of the post would be provided with an aperture that receives the spring loaded ball which protrudes out of the aperture, and Lorio’s stylus would be provided with a plurality of detents on the inferior face of the stylus facing the spring loaded ball in the aperture of the cap, so that the spring loaded ball engages one of the detents to releasably lock the stylus in the particular longitudinal position with respect to the cap and post.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorio in view of Tuttle (hereinafter, “Lorio/Tuttle”), as applied to claims 5-7, 14-17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Ferrante and Farling.
As to claim 18, Lorio/Tuttle disclose further comprising: an adjustment mechanism (260 and 270) having a third indicia (286) configured to indicate a rotation of the femur (col. 5 / line 36 – col. 6 / line 15), wherein the adjustment mechanism is configured to rotate the body relative to the base (the body and the base rotate relative to each other, col. 4 / lines 33-34) to a desired orientation based upon the rotation of the femur.
Lorio/Tuttle are silent as to a plurality of retention mechanisms each comprising a ball and spring assembly, wherein the plurality of retention mechanisms are positioned between various components including at least the base and the body and the post assembly and the body.
Ferrante teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a base (14) and a body (guide means including flange 49) linked to the base for rotation relative thereto (col. 3 / lines 29-31), FIG. 2, further comprising a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (38; a ball plunger is a spring loaded ball) positioned between the base and the body (col. 3 / lines 44-53) to releasably lock the base and the body relative to each other in a particular angular position.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a spring loaded ball, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the base and the body in Lorio to releasably lock the base and the body relative to each other in a particular angular position, so that a certain amount of excess force is required to overcome the pressure exerted by the ball and spring assembly to prevent unintended and undesired relative movement of the base and body, as taught by Ferrante. Lorio’s base would be provided with a ball and spring assembly protruding out of a face facing the body (at 110A), and the body would be provided with indents as taught by Ferrante in a face facing the base, so that the ball and spring assembly engages one of the indents to releasably lock the base and the body in that particular rotational/angular position.
Farling teaches an orthopedic instrument comprising a body (100) that includes a recess (130), FIG. 1; a post assembly (202) received in the recess and moveable relative to the body; further comprising a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (138, biased ball detent, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post assembly and the body to create a frictional force to help maintain the post assembly in a user selected position while permitting easy readjustment (col. 2 / lines 31-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a retention mechanism comprising a ball and spring assembly (a biased ball detent, which comprises a ball and spring element) positioned between the post assembly and the body in Lorio to create a frictional force to help maintain the post assembly in a user selected position while permitting easy readjustment, as taught by Farling. Lorio’s body (at 120) would be provided with a ball and spring assembly protruding into the recess that receives the post assembly, to be biased against a side of the post assembly when inserted therein to create the frictional force to help maintain the post assembly in a user selected position while permitting easy readjustment.
Conclusion
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 TRACY L KAMIKAWA whose telephone number is (571)270-7276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-6:30 PM.
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.
/TRACY L KAMIKAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights