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 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: Lavallee fails to disclose anything relating to markings configured to indicate an angle of rotation between the guide slot and the second portion of the cutting block.
Response: the office is of the position that Lavallee discloses a “tracker 203” which is shown to have markers, should be understood by a PHOSITA as being equivalent to the claimed marker(s), annotated in Fig. 32 to Lavallee below. Moreover, Lavallee defines a tracker in [¶153] by disclosing “a tracker that can use any of computer assisted surgery technologies (optical tracker made of reflective markers, optical tracker made of active LEDs, electromagnetic trackers made of coils, combination of inertial sensors, ultrasonic sensors, RFID sensors, etc.)”.
Moreover, Lavallee explains that the markings configured to indicate angle of rotation of the guide slot relative to the second portion in at least in [¶258 - ¶269] by disclosing “a new pose of the robotic device and the anatomical structure is determined using localization information provided by the trackers”, “the theoretical position and orientation of the planar mechanism can be computed from the new pose determined in step S1. Then, a deviation d between the plane of the planar mechanism and the target plane is computed”, “a new attitude of the robotic device is computed to reach the target plane. This computation determines the movements to be applied by the motors of the actuation unit”, and “the new position of the robotic device and anatomical structure is determined”, a PHOSTA considering at least these recitations in addition to the entirety of the reference to Lavallee, should understand that the markers trackers / markers (201, 202 and 203) are used to allow the user track the pose of 2000 having slot 20 and tracker 203 relative to the pose of the second portion of 4 having tracker 202 and the bones having trackers 201, and therefore, the structure disclosed by Lavallee which s substantially identical to that claimed is inherently capable of performing the claimed functions of indicating an angle of rotation between the guide slot (pose of 203) and the second portion of the cutting block (pose of 202).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lavallee et al. (US Pub. 2021/0353311 A1).
Claim 1, Lavallee discloses a system for a surgical procedure [Abstract, Figs. 1 – 32], comprising:
a cutting block [at least a portion of 4, Figs. 27 – 32] including a first portion having a guide slot [a first portion being 2000 having slot 20] and a second portion configured to be mounted on a surface of a bone during the surgical procedure [a second portion being a portion of 4 to be mounted on bone, i.e. by 41 being mounted to femur F], the first portion being rotatably movable about the second portion to position a resection tool using the guide slot [¶184 - ¶197, being rotatable at least about axis A3];
a position tracker configured to directly couple to the second portion of the cutting block to allow positional tracking of the cutting block by a tracking device during the surgical procedure [at least a portion of 202 defines a portion tracker coupled to at least a portion of 4 and includes markers, ¶153, ¶258, Fig.32], a position of the position tracker being rigidly fixed with respect to the bone [¶258, being fixed to 4]; and
one or more markings configured to indicate an angle of rotation between the guide slot and the second portion of the cutting block [at least a portion of 203 defines a portion tracker coupled to at least a portion of 4 and includes markers, ¶153, ¶258 - ¶269, Fig.32].
Lavallee discloses the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further, Lavallee discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
524
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, wherein the position tracker comprises: a frame; one or more mounting points on the frame configured to couple the position tracker to the cutting block; and a plurality of position markers on the frame, each of the plurality of position markers being trackable by the tracking device during the surgical procedure [Fig.32 above].
Claim 3, wherein the plurality of position markers are reflective to light [¶153, reflective markers].
Claim 4, wherein the plurality of position markers are reflective to infrared [¶153, optical markers].
Claim 8, a locking feature configured to lock the first portion of the cutting block with respect to the second portion of the cutting block [¶279 - ¶287, the motors of the robot act as locking feature which maintain a position of the gutting block].
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) 5 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavallee et al. (US Pub. 2021/0353311 A1) in view of Neubauer et al. (US Pub. 2005/0261699 A1).
Lavallee discloses the limitations of claim 2, as above.
Lavallee does not explicitly disclose (claim 2) wherein the mounting point comprising a clamp; (claim 3) wherein the cutting block further comprises a hole sized to permit attachment of the position tracker; (claim 7) wherein a portion of the one or more mounting points is configured to be inserted into the hole.
Neubauer teaches an analogous system [abstract, Figs. 1 – 5] comprising a cutting block [210] comprising a hole [by 240], and a position tracker [400] having a mounting point [defined by the combination of 410, 430 and 440] forming a clamp and define a portion to be inserted into the hole [Fig.1, ¶41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Lavallee and Neubauer, and construct the connection between the position tracker and the cutting block of the system of Lavallee to have the position tracker to have a mounting point comprising a clamp with a portion to be received in a hole defined in the cutting block in view of the connection of the system of Neubauer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the system of Lavallee with a functionally equivalent releasable connection between the cutting block and the position tracker that allows relative separation and secure fixation [Neubauer, ¶41].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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