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 .
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 7, 8, 9, 18 & 19 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 7 at Lines 1-2 recites the limitation “wherein controlling the bone saw comprises controlling, by a computer system, the bone saw” which renders the claim indefinite as Claim 1 at Line 3 previously recites “a computer system” and thus it is unclear if the recited “a computer system” of Claim 7 is the same computer system as Claim 1 or a different one. For purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as “wherein controlling the bone saw comprises controlling, by the computer system, the bone saw”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 at Lines 3-4 recites “wherein operating the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw comprises operating, by the computer system, the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of blade deflection in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “to determine an amount of blade deflection in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade”. Is the claim reciting that 1) the deflection itself is determined in a linear array pattern, or 2) the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a linear array pattern? For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 at Lines 3-4 recites “wherein operating the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw comprises operating, by the computer system, the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of blade deflection in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “to determine an amount of blade deflection in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade”. Is the claim reciting that 1) the deflection itself is determined in a grid array pattern, or 2) the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a grid array pattern? For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the computer system is further configured to operate the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of blade deflection in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “to determine an amount of blade deflection in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade”. Is the claim reciting that 1) the deflection itself is determined in a linear array pattern, or 2) the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a linear array pattern? For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the computer system is further configured to operate the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of blade deflection in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade.” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “to determine an amount of blade deflection in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade”. Is the claim reciting that 1) the deflection itself is determined in a grid array pattern, or 2) the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a grid array pattern? For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as “wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7, 10-17 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haider et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0009697).
Regarding Claim 1, Haider et al. discloses a method of operating a robotic-assisted orthopaedic surgical system (Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs [0084, 0086-0096, 0122-0123]), the method comprising: controlling, by a computer system (50, Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs [0033-0044]), a bone saw (100, Figs. 1-2) to oscillate a bone saw blade (102, Fig. 2, or 102’, Fig. 18-19, Paragraphs [0087-0090, 0147]), operating, by the computer system, a sensor assembly (load cell or piezoelectric sensor 104, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0087]) positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of blade deflection in the bone saw blade (“d”, Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0087, 0089]), and adjusting, by the computer system, operation of the bone saw based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (“Based on the data regarding the position of the surgical tool, the computer may send signals to the surgical tool to control the operation of the surgical tool, such as reducing the speed on the tool or turning the tool on or off.”, Paragraphs [0006, 0034, 0084, 0142]).
Regarding Claim 2, Haider et al. discloses wherein adjusting operation of the bone saw comprises adjusting, by the computer system, speed of oscillation of the bone saw blade (“Based on the data regarding the position of the surgical tool, the computer may send signals to the surgical tool to control the operation of the surgical tool, such as reducing the speed on the tool or turning the tool on or off.”, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 3, Haider et al. discloses wherein adjusting speed of oscillation comprises slowing speed of oscillation of the bone saw blade (“Based on the data regarding the position of the surgical tool, the computer may send signals to the surgical tool to control the operation of the surgical tool, such as reducing the speed on the tool or turning the tool on or off.”, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 4, Haider et al. discloses wherein adjusting operation of the bone saw comprises adjusting, by the computer system, a cutting angle of the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0006, 0084, 0088-0089, 0121-0123]).
Regarding Claim 5, Haider et al. discloses wherein operating the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw comprises operating, by the computer system, the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of in-plane blade deflection of the bone saw blade (deflection “d” within a vertical plane running through the longitudinal axis of the blade 102, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Haider et al. discloses wherein operating the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw comprises operating, by the computer system, the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of out-of-plane blade deflection of the bone saw blade (deflection “d” within a horizontal plane running through the top surface of the blade 102 when in the non-deflected position, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7 as best understood, Haider et al. discloses wherein controlling the bone saw comprises controlling, by the computer system, the bone saw to oscillate the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0087, 0147]) during advancement of the bone saw blade into a bone of a patient (Paragraphs [0085-0088, 0072, 0034, 0043, 0122-0123]).
Regarding Claim 10, Haider et al. discloses operating, by the computer system, a monitor device (monitor 85, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0048]) of the orthopaedic surgical system to generate an audible and/or visual feedback message based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0122-0123]).
Regarding Claim 11, Haider et al. discloses an orthopaedic surgical system (Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs [0084, 0086-0096, 0122-0123]), comprising: a robotic-assisted bone saw (100, Figs. 1-2), the bone saw having a sensor assembly (load cell or piezoelectric sensor 104, Fig. 2, Paragraph [0087]) housed therein, and a computer system (50, Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs [0033-0044]) electrically coupled to the bone saw, the computer system being configured to: control the bone saw to oscillate a bone saw blade, operate the sensor assembly to determine an amount of blade deflection in the bone saw blade, and adjust operation of the bone saw based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0086-0096]).
Regarding Claim 12, Haider et al. discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to adjust speed of oscillation of the bone saw blade based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (“Based on the data regarding the position of the surgical tool, the computer may send signals to the surgical tool to control the operation of the surgical tool, such as reducing the speed on the tool or turning the tool on or off.”, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 13, Haider et al. discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to slow speed of oscillation of the bone saw blade based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (“Based on the data regarding the position of the surgical tool, the computer may send signals to the surgical tool to control the operation of the surgical tool, such as reducing the speed on the tool or turning the tool on or off.”, Paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 14, Haider et al. discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to adjust a cutting angle of the bone saw blade based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0006, 0084, 0088-0089, 0121-0123]).
Regarding Claim 15, Haider et al. discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to operate the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of in-plane blade deflection of the bone saw blade (deflection “d” within a vertical plane running through the longitudinal axis of the blade 102, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16, Haider et al. discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to operate the sensor assembly positioned in the bone saw to determine an amount of out-of-plane blade deflection of the bone saw blade (deflection “d” within a horizontal plane running through the top surface of the blade 102 when in the non-deflected position, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Haider et al. discloses wherein the computer system is further configured to operate the bone saw to oscillate the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0087, 0147]) during advancement of the bone saw blade into a bone of a patient (Paragraphs [0085-0088, 0072, 0034, 0043, 0122-0123]).
Regarding Claim 20, Haider et al. discloses a monitor device (monitor 85, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0048]), wherein the computer system is further configured to operate the monitor device to generate an audible and/or visual feedback message based on the determined amount of blade deflection of the bone saw blade (Paragraphs [0122-0123]).
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.
Claim(s) 8-9 & 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haider et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0009697) in view of Kellar et al. (US Patent No. 11,642,118).
Regarding Claims 8-9 as best understood, Haider et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1, except wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade, and wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade.
Kellar et al. discloses a device configured to contact a bone surface in a joint (100, Figs. 15-16) comprising a plurality of force sensors (114, Fig. 16) attached or integrated into a lower bone-contacting surface of the device, and a plurality of force sensors (116, Fig. 15) attached or integrated into an upper bone-contacting surface of the device, wherein the lower and upper pluralities of force sensors “may be arranged in a pattern such as a grid layout or a radial layout” and “are segmented into at least a 2D or two-axis array of sensor elements, e.g., a matrix which is addressable by X, Y reference, radial coordinates, or other suitable position location, wherein the size of the individual sensor elements in the arrays may be selected as required to produce useful and actionable information.” and are configured to detect an applied force and/or pressure and produce a signal representative of displacement or position (Col. 7, Line 32 – Col. 8, Line 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor assembly of the bone saw of Haider et al. to be arranged on the blade in a linear/grid array as taught by Kellar et al. as an alternate and functionally equivalent sensor arrangement which allows blade deflection to be more accurately measured along the bone saw blade.
Regarding Claims 18-19 as best understood, Haider et al. discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11, except wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a linear array pattern on the bone saw blade, and wherein the sensor assembly is positioned in the bone saw in a grid array pattern on the bone saw blade.
Kellar et al. discloses a device configured to contact a bone surface in a joint (100, Figs. 15-16) comprising a plurality of force sensors (114, Fig. 16) attached or integrated into a lower bone-contacting surface of the device, and a plurality of force sensors (116, Fig. 15) attached or integrated into an upper bone-contacting surface of the device, wherein the lower and upper pluralities of force sensors “may be arranged in a pattern such as a grid layout or a radial layout” and “are segmented into at least a 2D or two-axis array of sensor elements, e.g., a matrix which is addressable by X, Y reference, radial coordinates, or other suitable position location, wherein the size of the individual sensor elements in the arrays may be selected as required to produce useful and actionable information.” and are configured to detect an applied force and/or pressure and produce a signal representative of displacement or position (Col. 7, Line 32 – Col. 8, Line 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor assembly of the bone saw of Haider et al. to be arranged on the blade in a linear/grid array as taught by Kellar et al. as an alternate and functionally equivalent sensor arrangement which allows blade deflection to be more accurately measured along the bone saw blade.
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 JESSICA WEISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, KEVIN T. TRUONG, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA WEISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775
Prosecution Insights