Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 10 - 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Ross et al. (US 2011/0004199 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ross discloses a method of correcting a deformity of a bone in a patient (Abstract), the method comprising:
coupling a first fixation ring to a first bone element of the patient (Fig. 3, ref. 56, paragraphs [0003, 38]);
coupling a second fixation ring to a second bone element of the patient (Fig. 3, ref. 54, paragraph [0003, 38]);
coupling the first fixation ring to the second fixation ring using a plurality of adjustable-length struts (Abstract, Fig. 3):
receiving correction plan data in a tool (paragraph [0036] discloses instructions/correction plan data in a tool ref. 10), the correction plan data for implementing a correction plan to correct the deformity, the correction plan data including information for adjusting one of the plurality of adjustable-length (paragraphs [0015, 36] discloses instructions for adjusting the length of the struts);
determining, via a processor operably coupled to the tool (paragraph [0030] discloses a processor coupled to the tool ref. 10), a prescribed length change of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts based on the correction plan data (paragraphs [0015, 39] discloses a treatment protocol for a length change which is considered to be the prescribed length change based upon the instructional data);
while the tool is engaged to the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts, operating a motor of the tool (paragraph [0030]) to rotate a driver (paragraph [0035], ref. 28) of the tool and thereby rotate a screw of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts to start adjusting a length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts according to the prescribed length change determined by the processor (see remarked Fig. 4 below which shows the driver ref. 28 of the tool ref. 10 adjusting a screw of the strut ref. 52 according to the prescribed length change plan);
while the length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts is being adjusted, determining, via the tool, whether the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts has been completely adjusted according to the prescribed length change (paragraphs [0016, 39, 45, 49 - 52] disclose the step of confirming the prescribed length change either incrementally or after a first length change step).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating the correction plan using an adjustment application on a host computer (paragraph [0059] discloses a host computer that can connect to the tool); and storing the correction plan on a memory module of the host computer (paragraph [0059] discloses a memory storage of the computer); wherein receiving correction plan data in the tool is performed by transferring correction plan data of the correction plan from the memory module of the host computer to the tool (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: determining whether the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts has been completely adjusted according to the prescribed length change results in a determination that the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts has not been completely adjusted according to the prescribed length change; and based on this determination, a motor controller operably coupled to the motor instructs the motor to continue adjusting the length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts according to the prescribed length change (paragraphs [0016, 30, 49, 62] disclose determining the length change and continuing the method until the desired length change has been achieved).
Regarding claim 11, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: determining whether the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts has been completely adjusted according to the prescribed length change results in a determination that the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts has been completely adjusted according to the prescribed length change; and based on this determination, a motor controller operably coupled to the motor instructs the motor to stop adjusting the length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts (paragraphs [0016, 30, 49, 62] disclose determining the length change and if the desired length change has been achieved the tool is commanded to stop).
Regarding claim 12, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein upon disengagement of the tool from the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts prior to fully adjusting the length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts according to the prescribed length change, a controller of the tool receives, from the processor, a signal indicative of the disengagement (the tool includes a signal sensor that detects when the strut fitting disengages from the strut, paragraphs [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Ross discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: re-engaging the tool to the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts following the disengagement but prior to fully adjusting the length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts according to the prescribed length change (paragraph [0049] discloses updating the information after length adjustments, thus if the desired length has not been met the tool will be updated).
Regarding claim 14, Ross discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: after re-engaging the tool to the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts, finishing fully adjusting the length of the one of the plurality of adjustable-length struts according to the prescribed length change (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 15, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, via the tool, identification data including information for identifying the one of the adjustable-length struts (paragraph [0034] discloses unique identification codes for the struts).
Regarding claim 16, Ross discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the tool includes an RFID reader adapted to receive a signal containing the identification data, the identification data originating from an RFID tags attached to the one of the adjustable-length struts (paragraphs [0034, 40 – 41]).
Regarding claim 17, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after receiving the correction plan data, validating the correction plan data via a correction application stored on a memory module of the tool (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tool includes a display unit (paragraphs [0032], ref. 20).
Regarding claim 19, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tool includes a power source, the power source being a battery (paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Ross discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a host computer is operably coupled to the tool, the host computer including a memory module, the correction plan being stored on the memory module (paragraph [0059]).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 2011/0004199 A1) in view of Krause et al. (US 2004/0068187 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ross discloses the method of claim 2, except for further comprising: after generating the correction plan, causing the host computer to display a simulation of the correction plan on a screen operably coupled to the host computer.
Krause teaches a method of computer-aided orthopedic surgery (Abstract) in which the method comprises displaying a simulation on a computer (paragraph [0020]) in real time relating to positions and other information on bone fragments and fixator frame orientations (paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Ross to include the step of displaying a simulation of the correction plan on a screen operably couple to the host computer, as taught by Krause, for the purpose of giving guidance to the surgeon operating on the patient (paragraph [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 - 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 which lists the prior art used in the current rejection and other pertinent methods of correcting a deformity in a bone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. 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.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773