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 .
1. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are amended as filed on 10/30/2023.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are canceled as filed on 10/30/2023.
Claims 21-23 are new as filed on 10/30/2023.
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(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genova et al. (Patent No. US 10,058,396 B1), hereinafter Genova, in view of KOMP (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0222146 A1), hereinafter Komp.
2. With respect to claims 1 and 8, Genova taught a surgical visualization system (title) comprising: a plurality of trocars, each trocar comprising a working channel (column 1, lines 26-29); a plurality of imaging devices (column 4, lines 11-22, where the image sensors are the plurality of imaging devices), wherein the imaging devices: i) have a corresponding trocar (column 1, lines 26-29); ii) is least partially inserted through the working channel of its corresponding trocar (column 1, lines 26-29); and iii) is adapted to capture images of an interior of a cavity of a patient when inserted through the working channel of its corresponding trocar (column 1, lines 49-59); a processor (column 1, line 59 to column 2, line 3), wherein: i) for each imaging device from the plurality of imaging devices: a) the processor is in operative communication with that imaging device (column 1, line 59 to column 2, line 3); and b) the processor is configured to receive a set of points corresponding to an image captured by that camera (column 10, lines 30-38); and ii) the processor is configured to generate a three dimensional point cloud representing the interior of the cavity of the patient based on combining the sets of points received from the plurality of cameras (column 10, lines 30-38).
However, Genova did not explicitly state that the imaging devices were specifically individual camera devices and that each camera device has a corresponding trocar from a plurality of trocars and that the processor is configured to display a view of the interior of the cavity of the patient as viewed from a viewpoint of a virtual camera based on the three dimensional point cloud. On the other hand, Mountney did teach that that the imaging devices were specifically individual camera devices and that each camera device has a corresponding trocar from a plurality of trocars (0004, where the trocars can be seen in 0034) and that the processor is configured to display a view of the interior of the cavity of the patient as viewed from a viewpoint of a virtual camera based on the three dimensional point cloud (0012, the generated inter-operative 3D image. See also: 0034-0037, the generated overlapping FOV is from the viewpoint of the virtual camera). Both of the systems of Genova and Komp are directed towards generating point cloud representations using endoscopic data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Genova, to utilize a plurality of cameras for image generation, as taught by Mountney, in order to more easily capture an working area for image generation that is less invasive than extensively moving around an individual camera.
3. With respect to claim 15, Genova taught non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to configure a surgical visualization system (column 10, lines 30-38) to perform a set of steps comprising: capturing, using a plurality of imaging devices, a plurality of images of an interior of a cavity of a patient (column 10, lines 20-30); receiving, from each image device from the plurality of image devices, a set of points corresponding to an image captured by that imaging device (column 10, lines 30-38); and generating a three dimensional point cloud representing the interior of the cavity of the patient based on combining the sets of points (column 16, lines 35-42).
However, Genova did not explicitly state that the imaging devices were specifically individual camera devices and that each camera device has a corresponding trocar from a plurality of trocars and that the processor is configured to display a view of the interior of the cavity of the patient as viewed from a viewpoint of a virtual camera based on the three dimensional point cloud. On the other hand, Mountney did teach that that the imaging devices were specifically individual camera devices and that each camera device has a corresponding trocar from a plurality of trocars (0004, where the trocars can be seen in 0034) and that the processor is configured to display a view of the interior of the cavity of the patient as viewed from a viewpoint of a virtual camera based on the three dimensional point cloud (0012, the generated inter-operative 3D image. See also: 0034-0037, the generated overlapping FOV is from the viewpoint of the virtual camera). Both of the systems of Genova and Komp are directed towards generating point cloud representations using endoscopic data and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Genova, to utilize a plurality of cameras for image generation, as taught by Mountney, in order to more easily capture an working area for image generation that is less invasive than extensively moving around an individual camera.
4. As for claims 2, 9, and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Komp taught wherein the plurality of cameras comprises at least four cameras (0038).
5. As for claims 3, 10, and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Genova taught wherein the processor is configured to combine the sets of points received from the plurality of cameras using bundle adjustment (column 13, lines 24-44, where the combined images include the plurality of combined points).
6. As for claims 5, 12, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 4, 11, and 18 (respectively). In addition, Genova taught wherein the processor is configured to, based on receiving a command to modify the view of the interior of the cavity of the patient: (a) modifying one or more of the virtual camera's position, focus and orientation; and (b) displaying an updated view of the interior of the cavity of the patient, wherein the updated view is of the interior of the cavity of the patient as viewed by the virtual camera after the modification (column 11, lines 58-62).
7. As for claims 6, 13, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 5, 12, and 19 (respectively). In addition, Genova taught wherein the processor is configured to display the updated view of the interior of the cavity of the patient while holding each of the plurality of cameras stationary (column 11, lines 58-62).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genova, in view of Komp, and in further view of Fujita et al. (Blazed gratings and Fresnel lenses fabricated by electron-beam lithography), hereinafter Fujita.
8. As for claims 7 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 8 (respectively). In addition, Genova did not explicitly state wherein at least one camera from the plurality of cameras has a cross sectional area less than or equal to one square millimeter. On the other hand, Fujita did teach wherein at least one camera from the plurality of cameras has a cross sectional area less than or equal to one square millimeter (page 5, lines 2-3). Both of the systems of Genova and Fujita are directed towards managing imaging devices and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Genova, to utilize cameras with 1mm diameters, as taught by Fujita, in order to utilize a camera that lowers invasiveness by maintaining a small cross-sectional area.
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genova, in view of Komp, and in further view of Soon-Shiong (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0304418 A1), hereinafter Soon.
9. As for claims 21, 22, and 23, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 6, 12, and 19 (respectively). However, Genova did not explicitly state wherein: the processor is configured to, based on receiving the command to modify the view of the interior of the cavity of the patient, modify the virtual camera’s position; and displaying the updated view of the interior of the cavity of the patient while holding each of the plurality of cameras stationary comprises displaying a view from the modified position of the virtual camera while each camera from the plurality of cameras is located in a position which is unmoved relative to when the command to modify the view of the interior of the cavity of the patient was received. On the other hand, Soon did teach wherein: the processor is configured to, based on receiving the command to modify the view of the interior of the cavity of the patient, modify the virtual camera’s position; and displaying the updated view of the interior of the cavity of the patient while holding each of the plurality of cameras stationary comprises displaying a view from the modified position of the virtual camera while each camera from the plurality of cameras is located in a position which 1s unmoved relative to when the command to modify the view of the interior of the cavity of the patient was received (0133, the guided virtual camera that moves through the 3D point-cloud environment). Both of the systems of Genova and Soon are directed towards generating 3D point-clouds and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Genova and Komp, to utilize a movable virtual camera with respect to the physical cameras, as taught by Soon, in order to provide a system that allows the imaging device operator to more easily see the desired area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights