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.
Claim 11 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 11 recites “close to the driving part and the driving part to fix the driving part” in line 2. It is unclear whether applicant intends to recite the driving part twice, or if this is erroneous. For examination purposes, the office will interpret this recitation to read, “close to the driving part to fix the driving part”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20190029727 A1) (hereon referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a fracture reduction robot (see Fig. 7) comprising:
a fracture reduction part (80, see Fig. 1) having a plurality of ring frames (10, 20) for surrounding a fractured area of a patient and one or more struts (30) disposed between the plurality of ring frames to adjust a distance between the plurality of ring frames (see Para. [0027]); and
a wireless driving part (90) connected to any one of the plurality of ring frames (see Para. [0042]) to transmit power for adjusting the distance between the plurality of ring frames (see Para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches the fracture reduction robot of claim 1, wherein the fracture reduction part (80) further comprises:
one or more top connectors (70), wherein the one or more top connectors are connected to one end of the one or more struts (see Para. [0028]); and
one or more bottom connectors (110) for connecting another end of the one or more struts to the driving part (see Para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches the fracture reduction robot of claim 1, wherein the fracture reduction part (80) further comprises one or more auxiliary connectors (107) for surrounding a ring frame (20) close to the driving part (90) to fix the driving part to the close ring frame (see Fig. 7 and Para. [0051]).
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Taylor et al. (US 6030386 B2) (hereon referred to as Taylor).
Park teaches a fracture fixation robot as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, wherein each of the one or more struts (30) comprises: a strut body (35) variable in length, a through hole formed on one end of the strut body (35) and configured to be fastened to a corresponding top connector (70); and a power transmission member (97) disposed on another end of the strut body (35) in and connected to a corresponding bottom connector (50) to receive the power from the driving part (90) for adjusting the length of the strut body (see Para. [0045]) (claim 3), wherein each of the one or more top connectors (70) comprises: one or more fixing pins (63) passing through one end of corresponding strut bodies (35) to allow the struts to be fixed to the top connector (passing indirectly through strut body 35 via portion 55); one or more escape prevention members (59) coupled to the corresponding one or more fixing pins (63) to prevent the struts fixed to the top connector from escaping therefrom (see Para. [0032]); and one or more rotational pins (57) passing through one side peripheries of the corresponding one or more fixing pins (63) from an outside thereof to adjust an angle of the fixing pins (note that rotational pin portion 57 passes through the periphery of pins 63 via 55), wherein the one or more struts (30) are variable in angle around the corresponding one or more rotational pins (57) of the one or more top connectors (see Paras. [0031-0032]) (claim 4), however fails to teach the strut body having a sight gauge disposed in a longitudinal direction thereof and a measurer configured to move in an interior of the sight gauge according to the variation in length of the strut body to measure a length of the strut (claim 3).
Taylor teaches a fixation device (2, see Fig. 1) with two rings (3, 4), and several connecting struts (1), wherein the struts have a strut body (6), the strut body (6) having a sight gauge (29) disposed in a longitudinal direction thereof and a measurer (30) configured to move in an interior of the sight gauge (see Fig. 2) according to the variation in length of the strut body to measure a length of the strut (see Col. 8, ll. 17-36).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the strut of Park to have the sight gauge and corresponding measurer (claim 3) as taught by Taylor, as this would allow for the positioning of the rod to be seen easily (see Col. 8, ll. 30-36). It is also noted that while not explicitly described by Park, such a configuration seems to be disclosed in the figures, see Fig. 1.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Taylor as applied in the rejection of claim 3 above, and further in view of Cohen et al (US 20210038147 A1) (hereon referred to as Cohen).
Park teaches a fracture fixation robot as outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above, and Taylor teaches a fixation device with a sight gauge and measurer as outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above, however the combination of the two fail to teach wherein the driving part comprises: a driving part housing, wherein a limb of a patient is configured to pass through the driving part housing; a controller disposed inside the driving part housing to provide the power to the one or more struts; and one or more driving part couplers disposed on one surface of the driving part housing and connected to the power transmission members of the one or more struts through the one or more bottom connectors to transmit the power to the one or more struts to adjust the lengths of the strut bodies (claim 5), wherein the controller comprises: a main controller for controlling an operation of the fracture reduction part; one or more driving motors disposed to correspond to the one or more struts to vary the lengths and directions of the one or more struts under the control of the main controller; and a power source configured to apply a-power to the main controller and the one or more driving motors (claim 8).
Cohen teaches a fixation device (see Fig. 7A) with a driving part (500), wherein the driving part (500) comprises: a driving part housing (502), wherein a limb of a patient is configured to pass through the driving part housing (see Fig. 7A); a controller (509) disposed inside the driving part housing (502) to provide the power to the one or more struts (see Para. [0224]); and one or more driving part couplers (linear actuators described in Para. [0224]) disposed on one surface of the driving part housing (502) and connected to the power transmission members (504) of the one or more struts (710) through the one or more bottom connectors (712) to transmit the power to the one or more struts to adjust the lengths of the strut bodies (see Paras. [0251-0253]). Cohen also teaches a controller comprising: a main controller (514) for controlling an operation of the fracture reduction part (see Para. [0223]); one or more driving motors (additional linear actuator described in Para. [0220]) disposed to correspond to the one or more struts to vary the lengths and directions of the one or more struts under the control of the main controller (see Para. [0224]); and a power source (510) configured to apply a-power to the main controller and the one or more driving motors (see Para. [0222]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the driving part of Park to have a driving part housing, wherein a limb of a patient is configured to pass through the driving part housing; a controller disposed inside the driving part housing to provide the power to the one or more struts; and one or more driving part couplers disposed on one surface of the driving part housing and connected to the power transmission members of the one or more struts through the one or more bottom connectors to transmit the power to the one or more struts to adjust the lengths of the strut bodies (claim 5), wherein the controller comprises: a main controller for controlling an operation of the fracture reduction part; one or more driving motors disposed to correspond to the one or more struts to vary the lengths and directions of the one or more struts under the control of the main controller; and a power source configured to apply a-power to the main controller and the one or more driving motors (claim 8), as taught by Cohen, as this would allow for streamlined engagement between the driving part and the fracture reduction robot (see Para. [0125] of Cohen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, the claimed combination of limitations recited in dependent claims 6 and 7. In particular, none of the cited references teach or suggest “one or more first connection holes facing the corresponding struts and having a diameters equal to a diameters of the power transmission members of the struts; and one or more second connection holes facing the corresponding driving part couplers and having a diameters equal to a diameters of the driving part couplers, wherein the bottom connectors connect the power transmission members and the driving part couplers to each other” or “a pipe thread for coupling the corresponding strut to the corresponding bottom connector; a key groove configured to engage with the corresponding driving part coupler; and a ball joint having a pin passing therethrough from an outside thereof to rotate around the pin” as required by claims 6 and 7, respectfully.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20020010465 A1: This reference teaches a fixator with automated adjustable struts.
US 20030191466 A1: This reference teaches a fixator with adjustable struts.
US 12653579 B2: This reference teaches a fixator with automated adjustable struts and a control unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY J LANE whose telephone number is (703)756-4702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/H.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /EDUARDO C ROBERT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights