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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: Couture does not anticipate claim 11, for not disclosing each and every element of amended claim 11. For example, Couture does not discus at least “a femoral intramedullary canal reamer positioned within a femoral intramedullary canal”, and “a tibial arm configured to couple with an end portion of a tibial intramedullary canal reamer positioned within a tibial intramedullary canal”.
Response: the office is of the position that claim 11 does not require neither the intramedullary canal reamer of the femur nor the tibia as parts of the claimed system, the claim requires femoral and tibial arms configured to couple to IM reamers. In this case, since the structure of the system disclosed by Couture exhibits substantially identical structure to that claimed, therefore, inherently capable of performing the claimed functions if one desire to do so, i.e. coupling IM reamers positioned within IM canals of femur and tibia.
Applicant may consider adding the reamers as positive components of the claimed system and show the structural correlation between the arms and the IM reamers to overcome this rejection.
With regards to Applicant’s argument directed to “determining a component size for an implant or a knee gap based on alignment of the femoral arm with respect to the intramedullary axis of the tibia”. The office is of the position that a PHOSITA considering the entirety of Couture would understand that the femoral arm, being configured for engaging at least a portion of the femur, is aligned with respect to the femoral and tibial axes, being axes of the bones forming the knee joint to be treated.
In view of the preceding explanation, the rejection is deemed proper and hereby maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 11 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Couture et al. (US Pub. 2017/0360512 A1).
Claim 11, Couture discloses a revision system [abstract, Figs. 1 – 33] comprising:
a tensor device [1500], including a femoral arm [at least a portion by 1512] configured to couple with an end portion of a femoral intramedullary canal reamer positioned within a femoral intramedullary canal [1512 is capable of coupling to reamer positioned within IM canal, for having substantially identical structure to that claimed], and a tibial arm [at least a portion by 1510] configured to couple with an end portion of a tibial intramedullary canal reamer positioned within a tibial intramedullary canal [1510 is capable of coupling to reamer positioned within IM canal, for having substantially identical structure to that claimed], and a slider component [at least a portion of 1506] configured to move based on movement of the femoral arm with respect to the tibial arm [¶98];
a robotic surgical device including:
a robotic arm [at least a portion of 1502];
memory, including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to [¶130 - ¶148]:
cause the robotic arm to move the femoral arm parallel to an intramedullary axis of a tibia, according to a joint line [¶98, ¶132 and ¶170 ];
determine a component size for an implant or a knee gap based on an alignment of the femoral arm with respect to the intramedullary axis of the tibia [¶142, ¶144, ¶156, ¶170, ¶173 and ¶175 - ¶176]; and
output the component size or the knee gap for display in a user interface [¶145 - ¶148 and ¶174].
Couture discloses the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further, Couture discloses:
Claim 12, wherein the tensor device further comprises a lock lever configured to lock the slider component to the identified knee gap [at least a portion of 1504 exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed lock lever, and therefore inherently capable of performing the function of locking the slider, ¶98 and Fig.15].
Claim 13, wherein the slider component further comprises a cut guide [at least a surface portion of 1506 exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed cutting guide, and therefore inherently capable of performing the function of a cutting guide, Fig.15].
Claim 14, wherein the tensor device includes a lock configured to be engaged via the robotic arm to lock the femoral arm and the slider in fixed positions relative to the tibial arm [at least a portion of 1504 exhibits substantially identical structure to the claimed lock lever, and therefore inherently capable of performing the function of locking the femoral arm and slider, ¶98 and Fig.15].
Claim 15, wherein the component size corresponds to a knee gap corresponding to the alignment of the femoral arm [¶42 and ¶112].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL S. HANNA whose telephone number is (571)270-3248. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-F.
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.
/SAMUEL S HANNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights