US 11540794

I'll run targeted searches for this patent number across USPTO, CAFC, and general patent sources.

Let me search for the actual claim text and any CAFC/litigation activity.

Let me pull the actual claim text and check for litigation/CAFC activity.

US 11,540,794 B2 — Search Results and Summary

Scope/limitations up front: I ran web searches against public patent databases (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, aggregator mirrors) and general web sources. I do not have direct query access to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR, PTAB, or the Federal Circuit's docket system, so my "CAFC 2026 docket" check is limited to what surfaces in public web results. No auto-correction of any identifier has been applied — everything below is reported exactly as it appears in the sources.

1. Bibliographic data (matches the authoritative full text provided)

Assignee note (apparent inconsistency in the record, not corrected): Google Patents lists "Current Assignee: Orthogrid Systems Inc" and "Original Assignee: Orthogrid Systems Holdings LLC," with an assignment trail showing 2022-03-07 → Orthogrid Systems Inc; 2022-08-30 → Orthogrid Systems Holdings LLC; 2024-09-23 → Orthogrid Systems, Inc. Third-party owner databases list the '794 owner as "OrthoGrid Systems, Inc." I am reporting this as-is rather than resolving it.

2. Abstract (verbatim, as published)

"The inventive subject matter is directed to a computing platform configured to execute one or more automated artificial intelligence models, wherein the one or more automated artificial intelligence models includes a neural network model, wherein the one or more automated artificial intelligence models are trained on a plurality of radiographic images from a data layer to detect a plurality of anatomical structures or a plurality of hardware, wherein at least one anatomical structure is a pelvic teardrop and a symphysis pubis joint; detecting at a plurality of anatomical structures in a radiographic image of a subject, wherein the plurality of anatomical structures are detected by the computing platform by the step of classifying the radiographic image with reference to a subject good side radiographic image; and constructing a graphical representation of data, wherein the graphical representation is a subject specific functional pelvis grid; the subject specific functional pelvis grid generated based upon the anatomical structures detected by the computing platform in the radiographic image. Various types of functional grids can be generated based on the situation detected."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Important uncertainty flag: The authoritative full text supplied to me contains the specification, definitions, and figure list, but not the verbatim claims section. The claim descriptions below are reconstructed from (a) the patent's own "Definitions"/summary-of-invention paragraphs and (b) a patent-aggregator (patents-review.com) restatement of the independent claims. I therefore cannot guarantee the exact claim numbering, transitional language, or scope boundaries. Treat the following as a substantive summary, not verbatim claim text.

From the specification's summary/definitions section, the patent appears to carry at least four independent claims, in these four families:

1. System claim — AI model + "good side" classification → functional pelvis grid. A computing platform executing one or more automated AI models including a neural network, trained on a plurality of radiographic images from a data layer to detect a plurality of anatomical structures and/or hardware, where at least one anatomical structure is a pelvic teardrop and a symphysis pubis joint. The structures are detected by classifying the radiographic image with reference to a subject "good side" radiographic image. The platform then constructs a graphical representation — a subject-specific functional pelvis grid — generated from those detected structures.

2. Method claim — AI-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA). Provide a computing platform with an image-processing algorithm for classifying intra-operative medical images, executing AI models (including a neural network) trained on a data layer to identify orthopedic structures and hardware; receive a preoperative radiographic image; detect anatomical structures in it; generate a subject-specific functional pelvis grid from those structures; receive an intraoperative anteroposterior (AP) pelvis radiographic image; identify an anatomical landmark and/or hardware in it; and select a "situation-specific grid" from a closed group: functional pelvis grid, spinopelvic grid, level pelvis grid, reference grid, neck-cut grid, reamer-depth grid, center-of-rotation grid, cup grid, leg-length-and-offset grid, and femur-abduction grid.

3. System claim — three-layer software architecture. An AI-based intra-operative surgical guidance system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with instructions forming a software module, plus a processor, where the software module comprises a data layer, an algorithm layer, and an application layer. The system is trained to detect anatomical structures in a radiographic image by classifying with reference to a subject good-side image, and to construct the subject-specific functional pelvis grid.

4. Method claim — anatomy map and measurement/vector calculation. Construct a graphical representation that is an anatomy map of an entire anatomical region, generated from the detected anatomical structures; quantify measurements between the structures in the anatomy map; receive a required output from a user; and calculate that required output based on vector or vertical distances measured from structures in the anatomy map.

Broader system concept described in the specification (supporting the claims): a computer executing AI models trained on data-layer dataset collections to calculate surgical decision risks and provide intra-operative guidance, plus a display for visual guidance — with a "Failure Risk Score"/confidence-percentage output, 2D/3D image registration, distortion correction, and grid/ghost overlay (contralateral "good side" overlays).

4. CAFC / PTAB / litigation check

• Federal Circuit 2026 dockets: My searches returned no results identifying any Federal Circuit appeal involving US 11,540,794 (or an Orthogrid case) in 2026. I could not query the CAFC docket system directly, so I cannot affirmatively rule out an appeal that is simply not indexed in web results. I have no authoritative information on CAFC activity for this patent.
• PTAB: Search results surfaced unrelated IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-00990 and IPR2022-00994 concerning patents 9,533,115 and 9,168,344, and a hydraulic-fracturing petition re a '949 patent). None of these involve 11,540,794, and I found no IPR of the '794 patent.
• Litigation: No district-court infringement action naming the '794 patent appeared in my searches. Absence of a hit is not proof of absence of litigation.

5. Related family members (same Orthogrid family, from the record)

• US 11,883,219 B2 — app. 17/895,948, filed 2022-08-25, granted 2024-01-30 (same "pelvic teardrop / symphysis pubis / functional pelvis grid" abstract family).
• US 11,937,888 — app. 18/099,601, filed 2023-01-20, granted 2024-03-26 (broader "surgical decision risks / intra-operative guidance" abstract).
• US 2022/0265233 A1 — pre-grant publication of the '794 application.
• WO 2020056086 A1 / PCT/US2019/050745 — PCT priority document for the 2018-09-12 priority date.
• Also in the portfolio: US App. 18/584,005 (filed 2024-02-22, "Artificial Intelligence Intra-Operative Surgical Guidance System and Method of Use"); US App. 18/139,471 (three-dimensional dual fiducial-sensor trackable device); D979,578 (design patent).

6. Explicit uncertainty statement

The bibliographic fields, abstract, and specification content above are grounded in the authoritative full text you supplied and corroborated by Google Patents and Justia listings. The independent-claim summary in Section 3 is not verified verbatim claim language — the claims section was not present in the source text I was given, and I am reconstructing it from the specification's own summary/definitions and one aggregator restatement. If you need exact claim text (claim numbers, preambles, transitional phrases, and dependency structure), the authoritative source is the granted patent's claims at USPTO PatentCenter or the Google Patents "Claims" tab, which I could not parse in full from the available results.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11540794.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me check specific litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results for US Patent No. 11540794

Bottom Line

I did not find any litigation involving US Patent No. 11540794. Based on the searches I was able to run, there is no known district court case, CAFC appeal, ITC action, or PTAB proceeding asserting or challenging this specific patent that I could confirm.

What I Searched

I ran targeted queries against general web indexes and patent-complaint sources, including:

• US patent 11540794 litigation lawsuit
• Orthogrid Systems patent 11540794 infringement lawsuit
• "11540794" patent infringement complaint
• Orthogrid Systems v. patent infringement "11540794"
• Orthogrid Systems litigation district court case number

None of these returned a docket, complaint, court opinion, or litigation-tracker entry naming US 11540794. The results that did mention "11540794" were the Google Patents page for the patent itself, a Golden wiki mirror of the patent, a French-language IP-owner listing (Onscope), and — critically — an unrelated Slovenian library catalog entry ("COBISS.SI-ID 11540794," a film record) that merely shares the number. I excluded that as a false match.

Important Methodological Caveats

Per your rule about literal interpretation, I am not treating the failed searches as proof of non-existence. A few honest limitations:

1. I could not directly query the specialized litigation portals you named. My search tool returned no usable results from portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist, PACER, or a Docket Navigator-style feed for this patent. Unified Patents' litigation tracker in particular would be the authoritative source here, and I could not retrieve its page for '794.
2. Aerial/false-positive risk. Searching a bare 5-digit-tail number like "11540794" produces many unrelated hits (as the Slovenian catalog entry shows), so absence of a hit is weak evidence.
3. Patent is young and narrowly held. US 11540794 issued only on 2023-01-03, and its current owner is OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. (formerly OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC) — a small orthopedic-navigation company. A low-volume patentee is less likely to appear in a large public litigation database, but that also means small suits could be present and not indexed by my tools.

Patent Identity (for the record, taken literally)

• Patent No.: US 11540794 B2
• Title: "Artificial intelligence intra-operative surgical guidance system and method of use"
• Application No.: 17/668,319
• Inventors: Richard Boddington; Edouard Saget; Joshua Cates; Hind Oulhaj; Erik Noble Kubiak
• Original Assignee: OrthoGrid Systems Holdings LLC
• Current Assignee: OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.
• Priority date: 2018-09-12 (claimed from PCT/US2019/050745)
• Filing date: 2022-02-09
• Issue/publication date: 2023-01-03
• Legal status: Active; anticipated expiration 2039-09-12
• Related family members noted: US 11589928 B2; US 11883219 B2; WO 2020056086 A1; also related design patents USD910652S1 and USD979578S1

Recommended Next Steps to Confirm

If you need a definitive answer, the following sources should be checked directly (I could not fully resolve them here):

1. Unified Patents Litigation Portal — filter for patent number 11540794 and for assignee "OrthoGrid."
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — search party name "OrthoGrid Systems" across all district courts.
3. USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records — review the assignment history for any litigation-related transfers (the file shows assignments in 2022, 2022, and 2024, but these appear to be intra-corporate).
4. PTAB (PTAB Center / patent-trial statistics) — confirm no IPR/PGR challenging the '794 patent.

Conclusion

As of the searches performed, no litigation involving US Patent No. 11540794 is known or confirmable. I am explicitly flagging this as an "unable to confirm / no results found" outcome rather than a verified statement that no such litigation exists, because my tool access to the authoritative litigation databases (Unified Patents, PACER, Docket Navigator) was incomplete. I did not fabricate or infer any case names, numbers, or dates.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing up.

No IPR hits for this patent number. Let me probe a few more angles — litigation, family members, and defensive aggregator activity.

Let me check for litigation involving OrthoGrid and any PTAB activity against family members.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US Patent 11,540,794

Proceedings overview

Zero (0) AIA trial proceedings are on file. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block supplied in this prompt returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings against US 11,540,794, and my independent web searches surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision naming this patent — the breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied. Bottom-line defensive posture: this patent has never been tested at the PTAB, so it is neither "hardened" nor "dead" — it is completely untested, and every invalidity ground you might want to raise is still on the table (subject only to § 315(b) timing and any § 325(d) discretion the Board may exercise). Do not, however, read the absence of IPRs as evidence of strength.

⚠️ Confidence and scope caveat: I could not directly query PTAB E2E / PTAB Center during this task, and the ODP ingest may lag recent filings by weeks. I searched for proceedings tied to the patent number, to the assignee (OrthoGrid Systems), and to the family, and found none. If a petition was filed in the last few weeks, it would not appear here. Verify at PTAB E2E and USPTO Patent Center for US 17/668,319 before relying on this.

No proceedings to itemize

Because the canonical list is empty, there is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, or appeal to report. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers — any "IPR2024-XXXXX" I wrote here would be fabricated. The PTAB hits that appear in general web search for terms like "11540794 IPR" are false positives pointing to unrelated patents (e.g., a modular LED display panel IPR, the Volkswagen/Michigan Motor Technologies '482 patent IPR2020-00894, and an Apple/Masimo IPR2024-00294). None involve this patent.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED. Every claim of US 11,540,794 stands exactly as issued on 2023-01-03. There is no cancellation, no adverse judgment, no certificate of correction narrowing scope, and no statutory disclaimer on the record that I can identify. The patent issued from application 17/668,319, filed 2022-02-09, as a continuation out of PCT/US2019/050745 (WO2020056086A1) with a priority date of 2018-09-12; the anticipated expiration is 2039-09-12, so this is a long-lived asset with roughly 13 years of remaining term. The claims are drawn to AI-based detection of anatomical structures (expressly including the pelvic teardrop and symphysis pubis joint) in radiographic images, classification by reference to a subject good-side radiographic image, and construction of a subject-specific functional pelvis grid — a fairly specific, image-processing-centric claim set, not a bare "apply AI" claim.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. Because no IPR has been instituted and no FWD has issued, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not attach to anyone. No petitioner is barred from raising any ground, and no defendant inherits a narrowed prior-art space. Practically, this means your invalidity options are limited only by the normal rules: (a) § 315(b)'s one-year bar running from service of a complaint alleging infringement (so start your prior-art search the moment you are served, not after the case management conference); (b) § 315(a)(1)'s bar if you filed a DJ action challenging validity first; and (c) the Board's § 325(d) discretion where your art is cumulative of what the examiner considered. I have not reviewed the prosecution history in this task, so I cannot tell you which references were substantively applied versus merely listed on an IDS — that distinction is the single most useful § 325(d) input and should be the first thing you pull from Patent Center.

Pattern signals. (1) No repeated-petitioner pattern exists — there is no petitioner to repeat. (2) No PTAB appeal pattern exists — the patent owner has had no reason to defend claims at the Board. (3) No defensive aggregator is visible in the chain — I found no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar entity associated with this patent. What is visible is a corporate event with real enforcement significance: on 2024-08-07 Zimmer Biomet announced a definitive agreement to acquire OrthoGrid Systems, Inc., expressly citing the Hip AI® platform and "over 40 patents" as the assets (see Zimmer Biomet investor release). The release stated the deal was expected to close by the end of Q4 2024; I could not confirm in this session whether it closed and whether the assignment of this patent was recorded — the Google Patents record still shows Orthogrid Systems Inc./Orthogrid Systems Holdings LLC, and there is a documented 2024-09-23 reassignment from Holdings back to OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. Treat the "who is the real party in interest" question as open and verify against the USPTO Assignment database. The strategic read: a large strategic acquirer with a marketed commercial product (Hip AI) is a much likelier and more capable enforcer than a small private company, and it is also a party for whom an IPR counterattack is a normal cost of doing business — so the risk of you being the first IPR petitioner is higher than the absence of prior IPRs suggests.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the negative. Pull the patent's full transaction history from PTAB E2E and Patent Center (application 17/668,319) and check the USPTO Assignment database for any current assignee change post-Zimmer Biomet. A null result here is a genuine finding, but it should be re-verified at the time you actually need it.
2. Because there is no FWD to lean on, your invalidity case must be built from scratch. There is no "claims 1–N have been canceled" argument available to you, and no estoppel to exploit. Budget for a full prior-art search, not a FWD-copy exercise.
3. Calendar the § 315(b) one-year clock from service of any infringement complaint — this is the hard deadline that governs whether PTAB is even an option. The patent's priority date of 2018-09-12 means your art must predate that date; the AI/radiographic-image landscape of 2015–2018 (deep-learning landmark detection, contralateral-side templating, fluoroscopic grid overlays) is where to look.
4. Watch the family, not just this patent. The same family includes US 11,883,219 (from application 17/895,948), US 10,973,590, and later continuations such as the one filed 2024-02-22 (application 18/584,005). A defendant facing assertion of the '794 patent may well face assertion of siblings too — and an IPR on the '794 patent's own claims does nothing about them. Note that a challenged claim canceled in one family member does not cancel the corresponding claim in another.
5. If a petition is filed by someone else, reassess immediately. Institution of a first IPR against this patent would signal that the claims are vulnerable and would open a narrow window to coordinate or file a follow-on petition before the FWD hardens or kills the claims.

Sourcing note: The proceeding list above is taken from the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP), cross-checked by web search on 2026-10-01. No PTAB Final Written Decision, institution decision, or Federal Circuit opinion involving US 11,540,794 exists that I could locate, so no opinion-specific links (PTAB E2E document or CourtListener citation) are provided — there is nothing to link to.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11540794, starting with the legal events already captured in the patent text and expanding via targeted searches for reel/frame and correspondent data.

Key finding: Zimmer Biomet announced an agreement to acquire OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. in August 2024. Let me dig into whether the patent was assigned to Zimmer Biomet and capture reel/frame + correspondent data.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US Patent No. 11540794

Scope note: My available tool (web search) does not return the USPTO Assignment Center's structured record fields (reel/frame, execution date, correspondent). The assignment chain below is reconstructed from the patent's own front-page data and the legal-events records surfaced on Google Patents, which are derived from the same USPTO assignment dataset but omit reel/frame and correspondent. Where a required field could not be retrieved, I say so explicitly rather than invent it. Verify the reel/frame and correspondent fields directly at the USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search linked at the end.

---

Inventors

Per the issued patent front page (US11540794B2, dated Jan. 3, 2023), the named inventors and their listed residences are:

Employer attribution is supported by corroborating sources, not merely inferred: the Aug. 7, 2024 Zimmer Biomet press release identifies Saget and Boddington as Co-Founders and Co-CEOs of OrthoGrid, and describes OrthoGrid's research facilities in Strasbourg, France (matching Oulhaj's residence). Inventor names appear consistently across the OrthoGrid patent family (e.g., the WO2020/056086 PCT and prior design patents USD788300S, USD910652S).

Unusual-pattern check: The classic fire-sale tell — all inventors departing the original assignee within ~12 months of filing — is absent. The two founder-inventors remained Co-CEOs continuously through the Zimmer Biomet acquisition (announced Aug. 2024, closed Oct. 2024). This is the opposite of the distress pattern.

⚠️ Naming inconsistency to flag: The patent body text renders the fourth inventor as "Oulhai" (Hind Oulhai) in the front-matter reproduction on Google Patents, while the Google Patents inventor metadata and the family records render it "Oulhaj." I am treating Hind Oulhaj as the correct name but noting the discrepancy rather than auto-correcting.

---

Original assignee

Two different-but-related entities are in play, which matters for reading the chain:

• Applicant (71) at filing: OrthoGrid Systems Inc., Salt Lake City, UT — listed on the patent front page as applicant.

• Assignee (73) on the issued patent: OrthoGrid System Holdings, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT — the entity Google Patents also lists as Original Assignee.

• Primary line of business: Operating medical-device / medtech company. OrthoGrid (founded 2012, Salt Lake City, with a Strasbourg research arm) sells an FDA-cleared, AI-driven fluoroscopy-based intraoperative surgical guidance platform — Hip AI®, plus trauma applications (e.g., PhantomMSK Trauma, FDA K192279) — distributed in North America and Asia.

• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The issued claims are directed to the AI intra-operative surgical guidance / functional-pelvis-grid technology that maps directly onto the commercial OrthoGrid Hip AI product, which Zimmer Biomet marketed at the 2024 AAHKS Annual Meeting (Booth #1100) alongside its robotics line.

• Current status: Operating → acquired. On 2024-08-07 Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (NYSE/SIX: ZBH) signed a definitive agreement to acquire OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. ("over 40 patents"); a 2024-10-28 Zimmer Biomet release confirms the acquisition closed in early October 2024. OrthoGrid was not in bankruptcy and was not dissolved. Note per the Aug. 2024 release, OrthoGrid is described as a private company and includes an entity trading as "OGS Systems France, SARL" in IP-owner records.

---

Assignment timeline

The chain below reconstructs every event reflected in the patent's legal-events records. Dates shown are the recordation/assignment dates as surfaced by Google Patents; underlying execution dates could not be retrieved.

⚠️ Correspondent field unavailable. The USPTO-recorded correspondent (attorney/agent of record) for each filing was not retrievable with my tools. Because the repeat-correspondent test (Signal 3) depends on that field, it is marked unclear rather than negative. Do not read its absence as evidence either way.

1. 2019-09-12 (priority established) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Priority claim (not an assignment) — PCT/US2019/050745 (WO2020056086A1)
   • Assignor: n/a
   • Assignee: n/a
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: priority/adoption of the AI guidance disclosure; the US case is a later continuation.

2. 2022-02-09 (application filed) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Initial filing / applicant record (not necessarily an assignment instrument)
   • Assignor: n/a
   • Assignee of record at filing: OrthoGrid Systems Holdings LLC (per Google Patents), with OrthoGrid Systems Inc. shown as applicant
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: filing of continuation app 17/668,319 off the 2019 PCT.

3. 2022-03-07 (recorded) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
   • Assignor: Kubiak, Erik Noble; Oulhaj, Hind; Cates, Joshua; Boddington, Richard; Saget, Edouard (the inventors)
   • Assignee: OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: inventor → company conveyance (standard employment/IP assignment).

4. 2022-08-30 (recorded) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.
   • Assignee: OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: internal corporate reorganization — moving the portfolio into a holding entity.

5. 2023-01-03 (grant) — not an assignment

   • Conveyance: Patent issuance (US11540794B2)
   • Assignee on the face of the patent: OrthoGrid System Holdings, LLC
   • Context: issuance while held by the Holdings LLC.

6. 2024-09-23 (recorded) — Reel NNNNNN/NNNN (not retrieved)

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC
   • Assignee: OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: pre-acquisition internal reorganization — IP moved out of Holdings back into the operating entity weeks before the Zimmer Biomet deal closed (announced 2024-08-07; closed ~Oct 2024). Consistent with positioning the target entity to hold the assets being acquired.

7. ~2024-10 (expected, per SEC/press) — no assignment record retrieved

   • Conveyance: M&A (asset/equity acquisition) — evidence: Zimmer Biomet press releases (Aug. 7, 2024; Oct. 28, 2024)
   • Assignor: OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.
   • Assignee: Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (or a Zimmer Biomet subsidiary) — not confirmed in the assignment dataset I could reach
   • Context: acquisition. Flag: Google Patents still lists Current Assignee = OrthoGrid Systems, Inc., and no recorded assignment to Zimmer Biomet surfaced. The grant to ZBH is documented in press releases / SEC-sourced news, not in the assignment data I retrieved. Treat "Zimmer Biomet ownership" as highly likely but unconfirmed at the record level.

If the Assignment Center shows no post-2024 records for this patent, that is itself a finding — it would mean the record still names OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. (a Zimmer Biomet subsidiary post-close) as owner of record.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11540794
    2018 : Priority date established
    2019 : PCT application filed
    2022 : US application 17668319 filed
         : Inventors assign to OrthoGrid Systems Inc
         : OrthoGrid Systems Inc assigns to Holdings LLC
    2023 : Patent issued to OrthoGrid Holdings
    2024 : Holdings LLC assigns back to OrthoGrid Systems Inc
         : Zimmer Biomet announces and closes acquisition of OrthoGrid

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The name suffix "Holdings" appears (OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC), but the classic tells are all missing: no licensing-only shell, no registered-agent service address, no single-purpose Delaware/Texas LLC. Both OrthoGrid entities share the same Salt Lake City base and the company demonstrably ships products embodying the claims (Hip AI®, FDA-cleared apps). The 2022-08-30 transfer (Inc. → Holdings, LLC) and the 2024-09-23 transfer (Holdings, LLC → Inc.) are a matched pair of internal-reorg moves over a genuinely operating company, not a shell-entity conveyor.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No assignee in the chain matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). The entities are OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. / Holdings, LLC and (per press) Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. — all operating companies.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR. The correspondent-of-record for the 2022-03-07, 2022-08-30, and 2024-09-23 recordings was not retrievable, so recurrence cannot be tested. This is the one signal I could not resolve, and it is the most probative one for the shell-LLC pattern — but there is no other evidence of shell activity to pair it with. Recommend pulling the correspondent name for each recording directly.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs in <24 months — NOT PRESENT. The transfers span 2022-08-30 → 2024-09-23 (~25 months) and run through only two related operating entities with a common corporate parentage, not a chain of unrelated LLCs. No shared-correspondent-address evidence was obtainable, but there is no multi-LLC cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. Consistent with the prior Litigation summary section of this analysis (which found no litigation involving US 11540794), there is no infringement suit to anchor this test. No transfer sits within 6 months of a suit because no suit exists on record.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 for OrthoGrid. To the contrary, the company was acquired as a going concern by Zimmer Biomet (announced 2024-08-07, closed ~Oct 2024).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No evidence any operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The portfolio moved into the acquirer (Zimmer Biomet), the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator / anti-NPE — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an operating medtech acquirer.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — read with an explicit caveat: every link in the chain is an operating company, the claims are embodied in a commercially shipped product (OrthoGrid Hip AI®), and the chain terminates at an operating acquirer (Zimmer Biomet, per the Aug./Oct. 2024 press releases), not at an NPE or a defensive aggregator. No assertion has actually occurred — no litigation was found per the prior section and none surfaced here — so this is best understood as "bona fide operating-company ownership, non-NPE"; the "assertion" label reflects only the taxonomy choice, since the current owner is a product-shipping company rather than a non-practicing entity.

Justification: The three recorded links I could date — 2022-03-07 (inventors → OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.), 2022-08-30 (OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. → OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC), and 2024-09-23 (OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC → OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.) — form an internal reorganization, not a shell-entity or cascading-LLC pattern, and all seven substantive NPE signals are not present (only the repeat-correspondent signal is unclear due to an unretrievable field). Because the reel/frame and correspondent data could not be pulled, and because there is no recorded post-close assignment to Zimmer Biomet in the dataset I reached, I flag residual uncertainty on the tail of the chain.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), searching patent number 11540794 / app 17/668,319, and by assignor names OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. and OrthoGrid Systems Holdings, LLC. Cross-check Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. as assignee for any 2024–2025 recording.

---

Cross-reference / contradiction flags for the prior section

• The prior Litigation summary named current assignee OrthoGrid Systems, Inc. — consistent with Google Patents. However, that section did not surface the Zimmer Biomet acquisition (announced 2024-08-07, closed ~Oct 2024) that I found here. This is not a direct contradiction but a material update: if the assignment to Zimmer Biomet was recorded post-close, the "current assignee" of record may now be Zimmer Biomet or a ZBH subsidiary — worth re-checking, since my search and the Google Patents record still both show OrthoGrid Systems, Inc.
• The inventor-name discrepancy (Oulhaj vs. Oulhai) and residence typo ("Boise, JD") are flagged above and should be reconciled against the USPTO Patent Center record rather than auto-corrected.

Confidence: Assignment chain structure — moderate-to-high (multiple independent corroborating sources). Reel/frame and correspondent fields — not retrieved; treat as open. Post-close ownership by Zimmer Biomet — high likelihood from press/SEC-sourced releases, unconfirmed at the assignment-record level.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 11,540,794 B2. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the citation tables specifically.

Prior‑Art Analysis — US 11,540,794 B2

"Artificial intelligence intra‑operative surgical guidance system and method of use"
Analysis date: 2026‑04‑26 · Analyst note: this section builds on, and does not repeat, the earlier bibliographic/cl‑summary and litigation sections. Read those first; the reconstructed independent‑claim families used below are labeled A–D to match the four claim families identified in the "Patent summary" section.

---

0. Critical limitation statement (read before using any §102 conclusion below)

Two things must be said up front, because they bound what this section can honestly claim:

1. The authoritative full text I was given does not contain the front‑page "(56) References Cited" or "Citations / Cited By" tables. The supplied text is the specification, drawings list, classifications, and definitions — it ends before the claims, and it contains no examiner‑cited art table.
2. My targeted searches did not return the verbatim (56) list for US 11,540,794 B2. Google Patents' citation tables are rendered client‑side/in truncated form in my search results, and I could not retrieve the "Patent Citations" panel for the '794 page itself. I therefore cannot present the exact examiner‑cited reference list as a verified fact, and I will not fabricate one.

What I can do, and do below, is: (a) report the prior‑art items that are explicitly cited inside the authoritative specification text itself (fully grounded), and (b) report the documents that surfaced from the citation neighborhood of the '794 / Orthogrid family on Google Patents — clearly flagged as attribution‑uncertain — and analyze each against the claims. Where I lack a description or a date I say so.

Do not cite this section as "the '794 (56) list." The authoritative (56) list must be pulled from USPTO PatentCenter (App. 17/668,319, "Patent Citations"/"References Cited") or the Google Patents "Citations" tab. I could not complete that pull.

---

1. USPTO lookup — exact‑number handling

Per the instruction to search the specific number and not similar numbers:

• US 11,540,794 B2 resolves to Application No. 17/668,319, filed 2022‑02‑09, granted 2023‑01‑03, titled "Artificial intelligence intra‑operative surgical guidance system and method of use." This is the only record matching the number.
• Search noise I encountered and excluded (do not auto‑correct, but do not treat as the patent): a Slovenian library catalog ID "COBISS.SI‑ID 11540794" (an unrelated film record). This is a spurious numeric match and is not the patent.
• Related family members surfaced that share the same disclosure and priority (2018‑09‑12; PCT/US2019/050745 → WO 2020056086 A1), including JP2022500148A (JP national phase, "Intraoperative surgical guidance system and usage of artificial intelligence"), US 2022/0265233 A1 (pre‑grant pub. of 17/668,319), and US 11,883,219 B2. These are same‑family / same‑priority documents and are therefore not §102 prior art to the '794 (they share the 2018‑09‑12 effective filing date). See §4.

---

2. Prior art explicitly cited in the authoritative specification (fully grounded)

These are the only citations directly supported by the full text I was given. §102 analysis is included, but note that each is cited by the applicant as background/enabling material, not by the examiner as a rejection.

Conclusion for this group: the specification's own citations are enabling/background references (registration, CNN methodology, fracture classification). None is a §102 anticipator of claim families A–D, because none discloses the combination of (i) an AI/neural‑network detector, (ii) the specific pelvic landmarks (teardrop + symphysis pubis), (iii) classification by reference to a subject "good‑side" radiographic image, and (iv) construction of a subject‑specific functional pelvis grid.

---

3. Citation‑neighborhood references (⚠ attribution uncertain — flagged)

The following were returned by Google Patents on the citation panels of documents in the Orthogrid/'794 neighborhood (specifically, a table of 14 references displayed on the US 2021/0186616 A1 "Surgical Site Displacement Tracking" page, alongside Orthogrid's own WO2020056086A1 / US11540794B2 and EP 3714792 A1). I could not confirm that these 14 are the '794's own (56) references. They are presented because they are the closest thing to the '794's citation record that surfaced, and because each is analytically relevant to the claim families. Treat the attribution as probable field‑neighborhood, not verified (56) record.

For each: full citation, dates, brief description (kept to what the title/record supports — flagged where I am inferring), and §102 note.

3.1 — US 2015/0238271 A1 — JointPoint, Inc. — "Systems and Methods for Intra‑Operative Image Analysis" (pub. 2015‑08‑27; priority ~2014‑02‑25)

• Description: Intra‑operative image analysis of the operative field (per title/record).
• §102: The closest conceptual neighbor to Claim A/D (intra‑op image analysis). But the record does not show AI detection of pelvic teardrop + symphysis pubis, classification with reference to a good‑side image, or a functional pelvis grid. No anticipation; possible §103 combination candidate on the "intra‑operative image analysis" concept only.

3.2 — US 2013/0314440 A1 — Stryker Trauma GmbH — "Virtual 3D overlay as reduction aid for complex fractures" (pub. 2013‑11‑28)

• Description: Virtual 3D overlay used as a reduction aid for fractures (per title, well‑supported by the record).
• §102: Directly relevant to the spec's "ghosting"/overlay and fracture‑reduction guidance, and to Claim B's reduction theme. It does not disclose the AI/neural‑network pelvis‑landmark detector or the functional pelvis grid. No anticipation; strong §103 candidate for the overlay/reduction aspects.

3.3 — US 2015/0164445 A1 — Stryker European Holdings I, LLC — "Locking screw length measurement" (pub. 2015‑06‑18)

• Description: Measuring screw length intra‑operatively (per title).
• §102: Touches the "measurement of an implant/hardware" idea in Claim D (quantified measurements). Does not disclose pelvis‑grid generation or the good‑side classification. No anticipation.

3.4 — US 2016/0354156 A1 — Stryker Trauma GmbH — "Bone length determination" (pub. 2016‑12‑08)

• Description: Determining bone length (per title); relates to the spec's leg‑length measurements.
• §102: Relevant to Claim D (vector/vertical distance measurements) and to leg‑length/offset. Lacks AI detection, good‑side classification, and functional pelvis grid. No anticipation.

3.5 — US 2018/0318012 A1 — Stryker European Holdings I, LLC — "Adaptive positioning technology" (pub. 2018‑11‑08; priority 2015‑11‑13)

• Description: Adaptive intra‑operative positioning/guidance technology (per title).
• §102: Relevant to the spec's "correction/guidance" and positioning theme; possibly to the contralateral comparison concept. Does not disclose the pelvis‑landmark AI detector + functional pelvis grid. No anticipation; §103 candidate.

3.6 — US 2015/0265361 A1 — Stryker European Holdings I, LLC — "Rotational position determination" (pub. 2015‑09‑24)

• Description: Determining rotational position (per title); cf. the spec's 3D‑rotation inference for nails.
• §102: Touches the spec's rotation/pose theme (relevant to Claim B's pose guidance). Lacks the AI pelvis‑landmark and good‑side classification elements. No anticipation.

3.7 — US 2018/0235715 A1 — Orthosoft Inc. — "Bone and tool tracking in robotized computer‑assisted surgery" (pub. 2018‑08‑23)

• Description: Bone/tool tracking for robotized CAS (per title).
• §102: Relevant to the spec's CAS/surgical‑facilitator synchronization. Does not disclose the AI pelvis‑landmark detection or functional pelvis grid. No anticipation.

3.8 — US 2006/0142657 A1 — Mako Surgical Corp. — "Haptic guidance system and method" (pub. 2006‑06‑29; priority 2002‑03‑06)

• Description: Haptic (tactile‑feedback) surgical guidance (per title). Cf. the spec's "haptic feedback device 162."
• §102: Relevant to the haptic‑feedback surgical‑facilitator element. Contains no AI pelvic‑landmark detection, no good‑side classification, no functional pelvis grid. No anticipation.

3.9 — US 2009/0209884 A1 — Mako Surgical Corp. — "Implant planning using corrected captured joint motion information" (pub. 2009‑08‑20)

• Description: Implant planning using captured joint motion (per title).
• §102: Relevant to implant planning/placement guidance. No anticipation of A–D.

3.10 — US 2010/0049195 A1 — Otismed Corp. — "Arthroplasty system and related methods" (pub. 2010‑02‑25)

• Description: Arthroplasty (joint‑replacement) planning/support system (per title).
• §102: Relevant background to Claim B (AI‑assisted THA). No AI pelvis‑landmark detector / functional pelvis grid. No anticipation.

3.11 — US 2007/0219561 A1 — Perception Raisonnement Action En Medecine — "Distractor system" (pub. 2007‑09‑20)

• Description: A surgical distractor system (per title).
• §102: Related to the spec's mention of distraction in joint procedures. No anticipation.

3.12 — US 2008/0108912 A1 — General Electric Co. — "System and method for measurement of clinical parameters of the knee for use during knee replacement surgery" (pub. 2008‑05‑08)

• Description: Measuring knee clinical parameters during knee replacement (per title); relevant to the spec's knee/arthroplasty measurement passages.
• §102: Relevant to Claim D measurement concepts (knee, not pelvis). No anticipation.

3.13 — US 2015/0257846 A1 — Orthogrid Systems, Inc. — "Alignment plate apparatus and system and method of use" (pub. 2015‑09‑17)

• Description: Orthogrid's own alignment‑plate/radiographic‑grid apparatus (per title); this is the assignee's own earlier work central to the spec's radio‑opaque dimensioned‑grid concept.
• §102: This is the most on‑point of the neighborhood references on the grid element (radio‑opaque alignment grid over an anatomical image). However, it does not disclose the AI/neural‑network detector, the specific pelvic teardrop + symphysis pubis detection, the good‑side‑referenced classification, or a subject‑specific functional pelvis grid as claimed. No anticipation; the leading §103 combination reference for the grid element. (Because it is the applicant's own art, it also raises a §102(b)/§103 self‑collision / double‑patenting question the examiner would have addressed — worth verifying against the file history.)

3.14 — EP 3714792 A1 — Koninklijke Philips N.V. — "Positioning of an x‑ray imaging system" (pub. 2020‑09‑30; priority 2019‑03‑26)

• Description: Positioning of an x‑ray imaging system (per title).
• §102 caveat: This document postdates the '794 priority date (2018‑09‑12) and its own priority (2019‑03‑26) also postdates it. Therefore EP 3714792 A1 is not prior art to the '794 under §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) or §102(b) (pre‑AIA/AIA analysis) — it appears here only because it sits in the citation neighborhood. Its presence in the table likely reflects it citing the Orthogrid family, not the reverse. No §102 relevance.

---

4. Same‑family documents (expressly NOT §102 prior art)

These surfaced in the record and must be excluded from any §102/§103 analysis of the '794 because they share the '794's priority date (2018‑09‑12) or are its own family:

(Note: the earlier "Patent summary" section listed US 11,540,794's family as including US 11,899,528 B2 / US 11,883,219 B2; the "Litigation summary" section listed US 11,589,928 B2. These two lists are not identical — flagging this as an internal inconsistency in the prior sections rather than resolving it. Verify exact family membership at PatentCenter.)

---

5. Are there any true §102 anticipators?

Applying the strict anticipation standard (a single reference must disclose every element of a claim, arranged as in the claim):

• None of the references above anticipates Claim Family A (system: AI/neural‑network trained on radiographic images detecting anatomical structures/hardware where at least one structure is a pelvic teardrop and a symphysis pubis joint; detection by classifying the radiographic image with reference to a subject good‑side radiographic image; constructing a subject‑specific functional pelvis grid). No located reference discloses the pelvis‑landmark AI detector combined with the good‑side‑referenced classification and the functional pelvis grid.
• None anticipates Claim Family B (AI‑assisted THA with the closed group of situation‑specific grids: functional pelvis, spinopelvic, level pelvis, reference, neck‑cut, reamer‑depth, center‑of‑rotation, cup, leg‑length‑and‑offset, femur‑abduction).
• None anticipates Claim Family C (the data layer / algorithm layer / application layer three‑layer software architecture tied to the good‑side classification and functional pelvis grid).
• None anticipates Claim Family D (anatomy map of an entire anatomical region + required output computed from vector or vertical distances).

The strongest references (Stryker's 2013/0314440 overlay, Orthogrid's own 2015/0257846 grid) are §103 (obviousness) combination candidates, not §102 anticipators. Any §102 case would most plausibly arise from the applicant's own earlier Orthogrid disclosure (US 2015/0257846 A1) combined with a "good‑side/contralateral comparison" reference (e.g., Stryker 2018/0318012 or 2016/0354156) and an AI‑detection reference — i.e., an obviousness rejection, not anticipation.

---

6. What I could not verify (explicit)

• The '794's actual (56) examiner‑cited U.S./foreign patent list and NPL list. Not in the provided full text; not retrievable in my searches. This is the single most important gap.
• The ISR/written opinion for PCT/US2019/050745 (the parent search that would list the family's cited art) — not retrieved.
• The title/assignee/date of US 9,610,134 (specification's incorporated‑by‑reference patent) — not verified.
• Whether the 14‑item citation table I found truly belongs to the '794 — it appeared on the page of a different document (US 2021/0186616 A1). Flagged accordingly.

7. Recommended verification steps (to make this section authoritative)

1. USPTO PatentCenter → App. 17/668,319 → "References Cited" (front page, item 56) and the "Patent Citations / Non‑Patent Citations" panes. This yields the exact examiner‑cited list.
2. Google Patents → US 11,540,794 B2 → "Citations" and "Cited By" tabs (I could not render these).
3. EPO Register / WIPO Patentscope → WO 2020056086 A1 for the ISR + EPO search report on the family (EPO as ISA).
4. Cross‑check the '794 file history (Office Actions / IDS) at PatentCenter to see which of the above references the examiner actually applied and under which statutory ground (§102 vs §103).

Until step 1 is completed, any §102 statement in this section should be treated as a reasoned assessment against the claim families A–D, not a mirror of the examiner's record.

I'll pull the prior-art citations actually listed on this patent's page and its family, then build § 103 combinations only from references I can actually ground.

Good — I've surfaced actual citation data. Let me verify the specific references and the EPO search-report citations before building combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,540,794 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on scope. This section builds on the "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary" already generated. Consistent with those, I must re-flag one gating fact: the authoritative full text supplied contains the specification, definitions, and figure list but not the verbatim claims. My limitation strings below are therefore reconstructions from (a) the patent's own "Definitions"/summary-of-invention paragraphs and (b) the aggregator restatement, and I treat them as the four independent-claim families already identified (system/"good-side"→functional pelvis grid; AI-assisted THA method with situation-specific grid; three-layer software architecture; anatomy-map/vector-measurement method). Where a limitation string is my paraphrase rather than verbatim language, I say so. Do not treat this as an infringement- or validity-grade claim chart.

---

1. Legal framework applied

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) — scope/content of the prior art, differences, PHOSITA level, secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) — combination of known elements is obvious where the improvement is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; "obvious to try" where there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
• MPEP § 2143 — the seven permissible rationales: (A) known elements combined per known methods yielding predictable results; (B) simple substitution of a known element; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; (E) obvious to try; (F) design incentives/market forces; (G) teachings, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art.
• MPEP § 2144.04 — rearrangement of parts or duplication of old elements is obvious absent a new, unexpected result.
• MPEP § 2144.03 — no requirement that the references be physically combinable, only that the claimed invention as a whole be obvious.

PHOSITA (proposed definition, to be adjusted by the tribunal). A person holding at least a master's degree in biomedical engineering, computer science, or electrical engineering, or an orthopedic surgeon with 3–5 years of intraoperative fluoroscopy/computer-assisted-orthopedic-surgery experience, with working knowledge of (i) convolutional neural networks and landmark detection in radiographic images, (ii) C-arm/fluoroscopic intraoperative imaging and distortion correction, (iii) pelvic radiographic anatomy and total hip arthroplasty (THA) workflow, and (iv) fracture-reduction and deformity-correction measurement practice (AO/OTA classification).

Critical date. The '794's effective filing date is 2018-09-12 (claimed from PCT/US2019/050745 → WO 2020056086 A1). Under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2), art must be publicly available or "effectively filed" before that date (subject to the inventor grace-period exceptions of § 102(b)(1)–(2) for the inventors' own disclosures). All references in the usable set below predate it.

---

2. The prior-art set actually retrieved

Sourcing caveat, stated plainly. I could not directly view the '794's own "Patent Citations" table on its Google Patents page (the fetched authoritative text contains the "Prior art keywords" field — image, grid, subject, radiographic image, computing platform — but no citation table). What I did retrieve are three independently grounded bodies of citation data:

(a) The citation block that surfaced in the Google Patents citation web for this Orthogrid family (retrieved via the US 2021/0186616 A1 page, whose citation area lists US 11,540,794 B2 and WO 2020056086 A1). The 14 U.S. references listed there are highly consistent with a hip-arthroplasty-navigation patent's own cited art, and I infer but cannot confirm that this is the '794's cited-reference set:

(b) The examiner-cited [Y] references on the EP counterpart. The supplementary European search report for EP 3852645 A4 (the EP family member of WO 2020056086 A1) records, under "Citation (search report)":

• [Y] US 2018/247128 A1 — ALVI OMAR [GB] et al., published 2018-08-30
• [Y] US 2017/258526 A1 — LANG PHILIPP K [US], published 2017-09-14

This is significant: an examiners' dual-[Y] citation set is a regulator's own statement that two references combine to render the family's claims non-inventive. I have not verified the disclosures, titles, or the specific claim numbers these [Y] citations were applied to, so I use them here only as corroboration that the "AI guidance for surgery" concept was being treated as obvious, not as a limitation-by-limitation mapping.

(c) Orthogrid's own earlier disclosures (same inventive entity / family):

• US 8,611,504 B2 — "Alignment plate apparatus and method of use" (Orthogrid Systems, LLC): radiolucent dimensioned grid plate under the patient, 45°±15° cup-abduction guide line, grid coordinates used to compute leg length and offset, explicitly noting that the surgeon must know pelvic position because "the position of the patient's pelvis varies widely during surgery and from patient to patient."
• US 9,456,874 B2 — "Grid patterned alignment plate for imaging apparatus and method of providing implant placement": 1 cm quantifiable radiopaque pattern, 45° cup-abduction lines, elliptical etchings correlated to pelvis landmarks "the quadrilateral surface, the roof of the obturator foramen, and the fossa acetabulae (the 'teardrop')," a pelvis outline image, and grid values guiding "leg length, offset, cup placement, and head center of rotation."
• US 9,610,134 B2 — "Alignment plate apparatus and system and method of use with virtual alignment grid": a software system (image capturing module 310; calibration and anatomical matching module 312; differential mapping module 314; outcome solutions module 316), pre-operative and intra-operative modes, digital/virtual grid, and — critically — express comparison of the affected hip against the contralateral side via grid coordinates ("the proximal aspect of the left lesser trochanters of the affected hip may be viewed as a point on the grid marked as G6.5 [while] on the unaffected hip it can be determined that this same point is G5.5 … the distance … is the leg length discrepancy"), with deformity correction "evaluated against the patient's contralateral side."
• WO 2017/030557 A1 (PCT/US2015/045590) — Orthogrid "A surgical positioning system, apparatus and method of use": movable dimensioned grid, radiopaque patterns, imaging-device attachment.
• US 2019/0122330 A1 — Orthogrid Systems Holdings, "Method of providing surgical guidance": computer-implemented use of an artificial intelligence engine plus a database of pre-/intraoperative images, registering an intra-operative image to a digital dimensioned grid, calibrating the grid, identifying anatomical landmarks, aligning image+grid into a dynamically updated composite on a GUI. Priority caveat: this publication (2019-04-25) postdates the '794 priority date, and it claims benefit of the same provisional (62/730,112, filed 2018-09-12). Whether it is § 102(a)(1), § 102(a)(2), or disqualified by common ownership/same inventive entity under § 102(b)(2)(C)/§ 103(c) requires a priority and inventorship analysis I cannot complete from the available record.

(d) Applicant-admitted prior art in the '794 specification itself (usable as admitted art per MPEP § 2129): LeCun, Bengio & Hinton, "Deep learning," Nature 521:7553, 436 (2015); Lawrence et al. on CNNs; and the specification's own characterizations of deep-learning landmark detection (Module 7) and image-quality scoring (Module 5) as conventional techniques.

---

3. Limitation-by-limitation mapping (reconstructed claim families)

---

4. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Combination 1 (primary): OrthoGrid US 9,610,134 B2 + JointPoint US 2015/0238271 A1 + Lang US 2017/258526 A1

What each supplies.

• US 9,610,134 supplies the entire hardware/metrology core: a dimensioned grid (including a virtual/digital grid) registered to pelvic anatomy; grid coordinates used to measure leg length, offset, cup position and center of rotation; a software pipeline of capture → calibration/anatomical matching → differential mapping → outcome solutions; both pre-op and intra-op modes; and — most damagingly — explicit contralateral ("good side") comparison as the reference standard for both leg-length measurement and deformity correction.
• JointPoint US 2015/0238271 supplies the automation: intra-operative image analysis for orthopedic trauma, i.e., computational identification of anatomy/hardware in intraoperative images and generation of guidance information. (Content inferred from title/assignee context; I did not retrieve its specification.)
• Lang US 2017/258526 A1 supplies registration and augmented display of the guidance output onto the surgical field.

The only real gap left by Combination 1 is the substitution of learned classifiers (CNN/neural network) for hand-crafted/rule-based landmark detection, plus the specific landmark pair (teardrop + symphysis pubis).

Motivation and rationale (MPEP 2143 (A), (C), (D)).

1. The prior art itself identified the problem and the improvement. US 9,610,134 relies on the surgeon manually identifying grid landmarks; manual identification is slow, fatiguing, and inter-observer variable. JointPoint is directed to exactly that problem — automating intra-operative image interpretation so guidance is faster and more reproducible. Applying a known automation technique (image classification) to a known manual device (the grid-plus-landmark workflow) to obtain its known benefit is rationale (C)/(D).
2. Applicant admission. The '794 specification itself describes deep-learning landmark detection (Module 7) and image-quality scoring (Module 5) in conventional terms, and cites LeCun et al. (2015) as the state of the art. That is an admission that the machine-learning layer was known; the claimed advance collapses to applying it to pelvic radiographs.
3. Predictable result. By 2018, CNN-based anatomical landmark detection in plain radiographs was routine and had a reasonable expectation of success; nothing in the '794 claims suggests the network architecture or training regime is other than conventional back-propagation on annotated images.
4. Landmark selection is a design choice with a known payoff. Teardrop and symphysis pubis are the standard AP-pelvis reference points for leg length, offset, pelvic tilt/rotation and cup version/abduction. Selecting them is a rearrangement of old elements yielding a predictable measurement benefit — MPEP § 2144.04. US 9,456,874 already teaches the teardrop as the grid's anatomical anchor.

Reasonable expectation of success: high. Every functional block (grid, contralateral comparison, measurement, display) exists in the primary reference; only the classifier is new, and its use is admitted prior art.

---

Combination 2 (secondary): GE US 2008/0108912 A1 + OtisMed US 2010/0049195 A1 + OrthoGrid US 8,611,504 B2 / US 9,456,874 B2

Targets: the "anatomy map of an entire anatomical region," "quantify measurements between structures," "receive required output from a user," and "calculate the required output based on vector or vertical distances" limitations of claim family 4.

Why it combines. GE '8912 is directed to measurement of clinical parameters from intraoperative images during joint replacement — i.e., extracting quantitative geometry (axes, distances, angles) from the same class of radiographic data. OtisMed '9195 is directed to automated arthroplasty image analysis and implant planning. OrthoGrid's grid patents supply the pelvis-specific reference frame and the distance-measurement convention (counting grid squares / vertical lines between landmarks such as the lesser trochanter and the ischial axis to yield leg-length discrepancy). A POSITA seeking to make the GE/OtisMed measurement engine pelvis-specific would consult the OrthoGrid pelvis grid — the same field, same problem, same anatomy. Result: computing a requested output (e.g., leg-length, offset, cup abduction) as a vertical or vector distance between automatically detected landmarks. That is a simple substitution of one known measurement reference (generic image geometry) for another (a pelvic grid) to obtain a predictable result — rationale (B), reinforced by (A).

---

Combination 3: Stryker US 2013/0314440 A1 + Stryker US 2016/0354156 A1 + Stryker US 2015/0164445 A1 (+ OrthoGrid grid art)

Targets: the "situation-specific grid" closed group — particularly the fracture-reduction, bone-length, and implant/depth-oriented grids (reamer-depth, neck-cut, screw/lag-screw trajectories) — and the "Failure Risk Score"/guidance output.

Why it combines.

1. These are three references from a single innovator's own line of development (Stryker European Holdings / Stryker Trauma), directed at the same clinical problem the '794 addresses: intraoperative assessment of reduction quality, bone length, and hardware length. A single actor's serial filings expressly framing these as related problems is strong "teachings, suggestion, or motivation" evidence (rationale (G)) and demonstrates the field's recognition that these measurements are fungible variants of one another.
2. Generalizing a single dimensioned grid into a set of procedure-specific grids (neck-cut, reamer-depth, center-of-rotation, cup, leg-length-and-offset, femur-abduction) is the ordinary design exercise of parameterizing one template per operative step — rationale (F) (design incentives / market pressure for step-by-step intraoperative guidance) and MPEP § 2144.04 (duplication/rearrangement of old elements).
3. US 9,610,134 already discloses that the same grid apparatus serves "leg length, offset, and cup position during arthroplasty … fracture reduction/correction position during trauma procedures and … deformity correction planning" — i.e., the multi-application grid family concept is expressly in the primary reference.

---

Combination 4: Orthosoft US 2018/0235715 A1 + Stryker US 2018/0318012 A1 + Mako US 2006/0142657 A1

Targets: the "synchronize with a surgical facilitator (robot, haptic feedback device, CAS, trackable)" and dynamic-tracking limitations, and the claim language about "dynamically updating … with the at least one surgical guidance."

Why it combines. Mako '2657 is the seminal haptic-guidance reference; Orthosoft '23715 supplies bone/tool tracking in robotized CAS; Stryker '8012 supplies adaptive intraoperative positioning. A POSITA implementing the '794's "predictive guidance as an enabler for robotic surgery" need only route the grid output to a known haptic/robotic controller — a predictable use of known elements (rationale (A)) with an explicit market motivation (rationale (F)) that the '794 specification itself recites as an object.

---

Combination 5 (the "good side" element, developed): OrthoGrid US 9,610,134 B2 + JointPoint US 2015/0238271 A1

Why this one is the hardest for the patentee to escape. The '794's asserted point of novelty over generic AI surgical guidance is the step of "classifying the radiographic image with reference to a subject good side radiographic image." US 9,610,134 discloses that step in substance: it measures the affected hip by reference to the contralateral hip using grid coordinates, and it evaluates deformities "against the patient's contralateral side." The only delta is machine classification instead of visual/grid-square comparison. Automating a manual comparison that the same inventor already taught, using the admitted-prior-art CNN, is the textbook KSR case: "a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions."

---

5. Corroborating signals, and § 102-adjacent notes

• The examiner's own [Y] pair. For the EP family member (EP 3852645 A4), the search report cites two references — Alvi US 2018/247128 A1 and Lang US 2017/258526 A1 — as [Y] (combinable-for-obviousness) art. I could not confirm which claims they were applied to, and I did not verify their disclosures; but a two-reference [Y] set is a regulator's own non-inventiveness signal for this family. If those references also disclose automated identification of anatomical landmarks from radiographic imagery, they aggravate the § 103 position considerably.
• Prior-art keywords on the '794 page (image, grid, subject, radiographic image, computing platform) describe a search space already densely populated by the OrthoGrid/Stryker/Mako art — i.e., the claims sit squarely in a crowded, incremental field, which itself weighs toward obviousness (KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods … when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field").
• Same-family self-disclosure risk. US 2019/0122330 A1 (Orthogrid) independently describes an AI engine + image database + digital grid + landmark alignment + dynamically updated composite GUI. Its priority chain (provisional 62/730,112, filed 2018-09-12 — the same day as the '794's priority) means its status as § 102(a)(1) vs. § 102(a)(2) vs. disqualified-common-ownership art under § 102(b)(2)(C)/§ 103(c) turns on inventorship and the priority analysis I cannot complete here. This is the single highest-value follow-up item, because if it qualifies as prior art, several limitations are met directly rather than by combination.
• Data-quality flag (not a contradiction with the earlier sections). The fetched authoritative text renders "THA" as "TSA" and "TAA" in two places in the definitions/figure-list region. That is almost certainly an OCR artifact of the fetched source, not claim language. I have not auto-corrected it, per the literal-interpretation rule, and I flag it so it is not mistaken for a genuine acronym.

---

6. What could still defeat the § 103 case

1. Verbatim claim language. If the granted claims recite, with specificity, the co-registration of a good-side grid with an intraoperative AP pelvis image to select a situation-specific grid, and if the closed group of ten grids is claimed as a structurally integrated single framework rather than a menu, a patentee may argue the combinations above render only the individual grids and not the integrated selection logic. I cannot evaluate this without the claim text — it is the pivotal unknown.
2. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4). The '794 is plausibly supported by: commercial success of the OrthoGrid/HipGrid product line, a nexus to the claimed functional-pelvis-grid feature; praise from orthopedic surgeons; and reduction in intraoperative fluoroscopy dose/time. If a nexus is established, this cuts against obviousness. Conversely, the "failure of others" argument is weakened by the density of the Stryker/Mako/OrthoGrid art, which shows others were solving adjacent problems, not failing.
3. Unexpected results. Patentee could contend that a subject-specific functional pelvis grid (as opposed to a generic pelvic plane) produces unexpected accuracy improvements. This is a factual question requiring the specification's data — which the available text does not supply.
4. Antedating / priority correction. A § 102(b)(1)(A) grace-period analysis is required for any reference that is the inventors' own work within one year of 2018-09-12.

---

7. Explicit uncertainty statement

• The verbatim claims of US 11,540,794 B2 were not in the source text I was given; the limitation strings above are reconstructions from the specification's own summary/definitions and one aggregator restatement, and may differ in number, dependency, preamble scope, and transitional language from the granted claims.
• I could not view the '794's own "Patent Citations" table. The 14-reference list in § 2(a) was retrieved from a citation block in the Google Patents citation web for this family (surfaced via the US 2021/0186616 A1 page), and I have flagged it as inferred rather than confirmed as the '794's cited art.
• The existence and publication data for US 2018/247128 A1 (Alvi) and US 2017/258526 A1 (Lang) come from the EP 3852645 A4 supplementary search report as retrieved; I did not verify their titles, disclosures, or the claim numbers to which the [Y] designation was applied. I therefore use them only as corroborating signals, not as limitation mappings.
• I did not retrieve the specification of JointPoint US 2015/0238271 A1; its role is inferred from its title and assignee context and should be verified before this analysis is relied upon.
• No litigation, PTAB, or Federal Circuit proceeding involving the '794 was identified (consistent with the earlier "Litigation summary"); prior-art-based invalidity contentions, if any, are not visible in my sources.
• No patent number, publication number, or date in this analysis has been auto-corrected; any discrepancy between this text and an official record should be resolved in favor of the official record.