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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a system, classified in B02C25/00.
II. Claims 12-13, drawn to bone fiber cut from a bone segment, classified in A61F2310/00359.
III. Claims 14-20, drawn to a method, classified in A61F2/3094.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as apparatus and product made. The inventions in this relationship are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different apparatus (MPEP § 806.05(g)). In this case:
The apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product since the product since the product can be made with another apparatus such as a grain mill, and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product, such as making shredded wood chips.
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case:
The process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such as a smart grain mill.
The apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as the process of making woodchips.
Inventions II and III are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case:
The process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product such as wood chips or wood pulp.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Invention I would require search in at least CPC B02C25/00 with a unique text search. Invention II would require search in at least CPC A61F2310/00359 with a unique text search. Invention III would require search in at least CPC A61F2/3094 with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Melissa Dobson on 08/27/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group 1, claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: computing device in claims 9-11 .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 is 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.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what structure is being claimed when applicant claims “a user defines a bone milling operation on the computing device” for examination purposes, this is interpreted as the computing device being configured to run native application, access a website via a browser application, run a software application, or a combination thereof. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(p).
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff et al. (Hereinafter “Schiff”) (US 20120160945 A1) in view of Stone et al. (Hereinafter “Stone”) (US 20100327094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schiff discloses: A system, (fig. 7) comprising:
a bone mill (400) configured to mill bone fibers from a bone segment during use, [Abstract] wherein the bone mill comprises a cutter (606) and a push block assembly; (610, 630) [para. 0068]
an actuator (410, tightening assembly) configured to receive a force input specifying a target force to keep the bone segment in contact with the cutter during operation, [para. 0068] and in response to receiving the force input, outputting an output force based on the target force; [para. 0068]
a plurality of sensors (420)(fig. 8) configured to detect a measured distance [para. 0072] between two objects; and
a control system (computer control system) [para. 0068] comprising processing circuitry (It is known in the art that a computer control system has to have processing circuitry to process the desired force input as disclosed by Schiff.) and a memory, (It is known in the art that a computer control system has to have memory to store and set desired force as disclosed by Schiff.) accessible by the processing circuitry, (Since the computer control system stores memory and processes inputs, and a computer has connected features, the processing circuitry can access memory.) and storing instructions [para. 0068] (It is known in the art that a computer control system is able to receive and store desired force inputs as disclosed by Schiff.) that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform actions [para. 0068] (The computer control system (comprising processing circuitry) executes instructions to perform actions related to setting a desired amount of force.)
Schiff fails to disclose: a sensor configured to detect a measured force enacted by the push block assembly onto the bone segment; and
The processing circuitry determining the target force to keep the bone segment in contact with the cutter; [para. 0068] (Although Schiff discloses a desired force of a workpiece (or bone) against the cutter, the primary reference fails to disclose the processing circuitry determining the target force to keep the bone segment in contact with the cutter.)
receiving from the sensor a signal corresponding to the measured force enacted by the push block assembly;
determining a difference between the target force and the measured force enacted; and
outputting instructions directly or indirectly to the actuator to adjust operation of the push block assembly based on the determined difference.
Stone teaches: A similar pulverizing tool [Abstract] comprising a sensor (load cell) [Abstract] configured to detect a measured force enacted by a grinding tool onto a surface. [Abstract] and
processing circuitry (controller) [Abstract] determining a target force to a desired value [Abstract] (In order to adjust the force to a desired value, the processing circuitry must determine what the target force is.)
and the processing circuitry receiving from the sensor a signal corresponding to the measured force enacted by the grinding tool onto a surface; [Abstract]
the processing circuitry determining a difference between the target force and the measured force enacted; and outputting instructions directly or indirectly to the device to adjust operation of the device based on the determined difference. [Abstract] (In order to adjust the force to a desired value, a difference between the applied force and the desired value must be determined and then instructions would be output to enact desired conditions based on the determined difference.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the functions and features of the load sensor as taught by Stone to the plurality of sensors of Schiff in order to adjust the applied force to a desired value. [Abstract]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the functions and features of the processing circuitry as taught by Stone to the processing circuitry of Schiff in order to adjust the applied force to a desired value. [Abstract]
After modification, Schiff in view of Stone teaches: a sensor configured to detect a measured force enacted by the push block assembly onto the bone segment; and
The processing circuitry determining the target force to keep the bone segment in contact with the cutter;
receiving from the sensor a signal corresponding to the measured force enacted by the push block assembly;
determining a difference between the target force and the measured force enacted; and
outputting instructions directly or indirectly to the actuator to adjust operation of the push block assembly based on the determined difference. [para. 0068] (Since the actuator is configured to receive a force input from the processing circuitry (of the computer control system) to the actuator to adjust operation of the push block assembly, the resultant modified reference is now configured to perform this based on the determined difference.)
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff in view of Stone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siebert et al. (Hereinafter “Siebert”) (US 20030102827 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the sensor detects the measured force enacted by the push block assembly onto the bone segment.
Modified Schiff fails to disclose: wherein the sensor continuously detects the measured force enacted by the push block assembly onto the bone segment
Siebert teaches: A similar comminuting device [Abstract] comprising a force sensor [para. 0024] wherein the force sensor continuously detects the measured force.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the continuous function of the force sensor as taught by Siebert to the plurality of sensors of Schiff in order to adjust the applied force to continuously monitor the force and to provide efficient and optimized control. [paras. 0034]
Regarding claim 4, modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 1, comprising:
an additional actuator, (variable speed drive motor) [para. 0058] wherein the additional actuator is coupled to the cutter; [para. 0058] and
an additional sensor (Since Schiff teaches a plurality of sensors, there exists an additional sensor) (420)(fig. 8) configured to detect a measured distance [para. 0072] between two objects;
modified Schiff does not explicitly teach: an additional sensor configured to detect a measured rotational output enacted by the cutter onto the bone segment.
Siebert teaches: A similar comminuting device [Abstract] comprising a sensor (81)(fig. 4) configured to continuously detect a measured rotational output, and connected to processing circuitry. (data processor assembly) [para. 0058]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the sensor configured to detect a measured rotational output as taught by Siebert to the plurality of sensors of Schiff in order to adjust the applied force to continuously measure and monitor the speed of rotation of a rotating element. [paras. 0034 and 0058 of Siebert] (such as the rotational ouput enacted by the cutter onto the bone segment of Schiff.)
After modification, Schiff teaches: an additional sensor configured to detect a measured rotational output enacted by the cutter onto the bone segment.
Regarding claim 5, modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry of the control system performs actions comprising: (See claims 1 and 3 rejections above)
determining a target rotational output to turn the cutter through the bone segment; (Since Stone teaches determining a target output based on sensor information, and Siebert teaches a sensor outputting rotational output, the resultant modified reference would be configured to determine a target rotational output to turn the cutter through the bone segment.)
receiving from the additional sensor an additional signal corresponding to the measured rotational output enacted by the cutter; (Since the additional sensor is connected to the processing circuitry, the resultant modified reference would be configured to receive from the additional sensor an additional signal corresponding to the measured rotational output enacted by the cutter.)
determining an additional difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output enacted; and (Since Stone teaches determining a difference between a target output and a measured output, and Siebert teaches a sensor outputting rotational output, the resultant modified reference would be configured to determine an additional difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output enacted.)
outputting instructions directly or indirectly to the additional actuator to adjust operation of the cutter based on the determined additional difference. [para. 0058 of Schiff] (Since the additional actuator may be computer-controlled, processing circuitry outputs instructions directly or indirectly to the additional actuator to adjust operation of the cutter based on the determined additional difference, and the resultant modified reference would be configured to determine an additional difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output enacted.)
Regarding claim 6, further modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 5, wherein the additional sensor continuously detects the measured rotational output enacted by the cutter onto the bone segment. (See claim 4 rejection above) [para. 0058 of Siebert] (The sensor continuously detects the measured rotational output.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff in view of Stone and Siebert as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. (Hereinafter “Inoue”) (US 20110101139 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry of the control system performs actions comprising adjusting operation of the actuator (See claim 1 rejection above) by:
continuously receiving from the sensor the signal corresponding to the measured force enacted by the push block assembly; (See claim 2 rejection above)
outputting instructions directly or indirectly to the actuator that adjust the target force based on changes in the difference. (See claim 1 rejection above)
Modified Schiff fails to disclose: continuously determining the difference between the target force and the measured force; and
Inoue teaches: A similar comminuting device [Abstract] comprising processing circuitry (control device) [Abstract] continuously determining the difference between the target force and the measured force; and
outputting instructions that adjust the target force based on changes in the difference. [Abstract] (Since the device of Inoue maintains constant force by using a feedback loop from detection signals sent from sensors, the device then continuously determines the difference between the target force and the measured force; and outputs instructions that adjust the target force based on changes in the difference.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the continuous function of the processing circuitry as taught by Inoue to the processing circuitry of Schiff to protect the machine in case of abrupt unwanted changes. [para. 0018 of Inoue]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff in view of Stone and Siebert as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Inoue.
Regarding claim 7, The system of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry of the control system performs actions comprising adjusting operation of the additional actuator by:
continuously receiving from the additional sensor the additional signal corresponding to the measured rotational output enacted by the cutter; [para. 0058 of Siebert] (Since the additional sensor is connected to the processing circuitry, the resultant modified reference would be configured to continuously receive from the additional sensor an additional signal corresponding to the measured rotational output enacted by the cutter.)
continuously determining the additional difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output; and
outputting instructions directly or indirectly to the additional actuator that adjusts the target rotational output based on changes in the additional difference. [para. 0058 of Schiff] (Since the additional actuator may be computer-controlled, processing circuitry outputs instructions directly or indirectly to the additional actuator to adjust operation of the cutter based on the determined additional difference, and the resultant modified reference would be configured to determine an additional difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output enacted.)
Modified Schiff fails to disclose: continuously determining the difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output;
Inoue teaches: A similar comminuting device [Abstract] comprising processing circuitry (control device) [Abstract] continuously determining the difference between the target force and the measured force; and
outputting instructions that adjust the target force based on changes in the difference. [Abstract] (Since the device of Inoue maintains constant force by using a feedback loop from detection signals sent from sensors, the device then continuously determines the difference between the target force and the measured force; and outputs instructions that adjust the target force based on changes in the difference.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the continuous function of the processing circuitry as taught by Inoue to the processing circuitry of Schiff to protect the machine in case of abrupt unwanted changes. [para. 0018 of Inoue]
(Since Stone teaches determining a difference between a target output and a measured output, and Siebert teaches a sensor continuously outputting rotational output, the resultant modified reference would be configured to continuously determine an additional difference between the target rotational output and the measured rotational output enacted.)
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiff in view of Stone and Siebert as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Forsten et al. (Hereinafter “Forsten”) (WO 2018187088 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 4,
Modified Schiff does not explicitly teach: comprising a controller, wherein the controller is programmed via the instructions stored on the memory to provide signals for controlling the actuator and the additional actuator.
Forsten teaches: A bone comminuting device (fig. 10) [para. 0064] comprising a controller, (controller of the planning computer 70) [para. 0066] wherein the controller is programmed via the instructions stored on the memory (memory of the planning computer 70) [para. 0066] to provide signals for controlling an actuator (60, fig. 10) paras. [0064-0066] (The actuator 60 actuates the tool 66 and is controlled by commands from the computing system 54 comprising the planning computer 70 comprising controllers. The planning computer plans a procedure intra-operatively (or during operation) and sends stored memory commands by a controller such as cutting parameters. Therefore, the controller is programmed via the instructions stored on the memory to provide signals for controlling an actuator.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the controller that is programmed via the instructions stored on the memory to provide signals for controlling the actuators as taught by Forsten to the control system of Schiff in order to control actuators. [para. 0064 of Forsten] (such as the actuator and additional actuator of modified Schiff.)
Regarding claim 9, Modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 8,
Modified Schiff does not explicitly teach: comprising a computing device, wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to the controller.
Forsten teaches: A bone comminuting device (fig. 10) [para. 0064], comprising a computing device, (planning computer 70) [para. 0066] wherein the computing device is communicatively coupled to the controller. (Since the computing device contains at least a controller that the computing device communicates with, the computing device is communicatively coupled to the controller.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention add the computing device communicatively coupled to the controller as taught by Forsten to the control system of Schiff in order to plan and execute complex procedures. [para. 0025 of Forsten]
Regarding claim 10, Modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 9,
Modified Schiff does not explicitly teach: comprising a cloud server, wherein the cloud server is communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein the computing device and the cloud server communicate through a network interface.
Forsten teaches: A bone comminuting device (fig. 10) [para. 0064], comprising a cloud server, (remote server) [para. 0065] wherein the cloud server is communicatively coupled to the computing device, [para. 0065,“It is appreciated that processor functions are shared between computers, a remote server, a cloud computing facility, or combinations thereof.”] wherein the computing device (70) and the cloud server (remote server) communicate through a network interface. (54, computing system) (The computing system facilitates a connection between the computing device and the remote server since the computing device is within the computing system and the computing device communicates with the remote server passing through the computing system.) [para. 0045 of applicant’s specification, “A network interface may allow communication with other devices on a network using one or more communication protocols”] (It is appreciated that the applicant defines a network interface as something that may allow communication with other devices on a network using one or more communication protocols.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention add the cloud server and the network interface as taught by Forsten to the control system of Schiff in order to be able to set operating parameters autonomously. [para. 0066 of Forsten]
Regarding claim 11 , Modified Schiff teaches: The system of claim 9,
Modified Schiff does not explicitly teach: wherein a user defines a bone milling operation on the computing device by using a native application, a website accessible via a browser application, a software application, or a combination thereof.
Forsten teaches: A bone comminuting device (fig. 10) [para. 0064], wherein a user defines an operation on a computing device (72) by using a software application, [para. 0065, “In any case, the peripheral devices allow a user to interface with the surgical system components and may include: one or more user-interfaces, such as a display or monitor 76; and user-input mechanisms, such as a keyboard 78, mouse 80, pendent 82, joystick 84, foot pedal 86, or the monitor 76 may have touchscreen capabilities”][para. 0067, “The device computer 72 may be housed in the moveable base 58 and contain hardware, software, data and utilities that are primarily dedicated to the operation of the surgical device. ”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention add the software application as taught by Forsten to the system of Schiff in order for a user to be able to operate a device. [para. 0067 of Forsten]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure:
US 20110084155 A1 teaches a comminuting device with a roller adjustment mechanism.
US 4844363 A teaches a comminuting device with load sensors.
US 5607269 A teaches a bone mill with a controller.
US 4621773 A teaches a control system for comminuting equipment with force adjusters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/J.S.I./
Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights