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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings of record do not have the requisite line quality. Applicant is further advised with respect to claim 3 that under 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1), black and white photographs (and photocopies thereof) are generally not permitted in patent applications. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim language “in particular” (claims 7 and 14) and “preferably” (claim 11) are indefinite and do not adequately define the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sainsbury.Sainsbury discloses in the Figures and specification a computer implemented method for training a surgeon comprising steps of displaying endoscopic images captured by a camera on a display device (see col. 8, lines 3-12 and 44-51), and tracking a movement of a user’s hand or hands or a device held by the user using a real-time tracking apparatus and computing device, where a sequence of tracking information is received and recorded, and then a cisual representation of the tracked information is overlaid onto the display of the endoscopic image as recited (see col. 20, lines 13-31).
With respect to clam 2, Sainsbury discloses a virtual representation of the user’s hands, which is considered to be a “life-like rendering” of the hands as recited. With respect to claim 5, the tracking system is close to the patient. With respect to claims 6 and 13, the tracking system of Sainsbury is attached to a VR headset worn by the teaching surgeon. With respect to claim 9, the tracking system of Sainsbury is mounted in an environment representing an operating room as recited. With respect to claim 12, Sainsbury discloses an image augmentation apparatus as recited.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sainsbury in view of Kotranza. Sainsbury discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a hand segmentation step as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Kotranza at paragraph [0057], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of providing more detailed information concerning the position of the user’s hands.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sainsbury in view of Meglan. Sainsbury discloses or suggests the claim limitations with the exception of the provision of a gesture recognition step as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Meglan at paragraph [0076], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sainsbury. Sainsbury discloses or suggests the limitations of claims 7 and 14 with the exception of the provision of machine learning algorithm step as recited. Official notice is taken that machine learning algorithms are well-known, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claim 8, the recitation of two sensors whose data are combined to provide tracking information in the system of Sainsbury suggests a triangulation system. With respect to claims 11 and 15, the recited display positions of the user’s hands are considered to be obvious in light of the teachings of Sainsbury. Applicant is further advised that the contents of a display where the display merely serves as support for the information or data displayed thereon is considered to be non-functional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
September 29, 2025