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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 October 2025 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “compare the pose information to the intraoperative pose”; “wherein the guidance information comprises alignment information reflective of a difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the interoperative pose based on the comparing”; and “store, in response to receiving the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, Claim 1 now recites “compare the pose information to the intraoperative pose” and “wherein the guidance information comprises alignment information reflective of a difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the interoperative pose based on the comparing”; however, the instant specification fails to show possession of “compar[ing] the pose information to the intraoperative pose” and “reflective of a difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the interoperative pose based on the comparing” because the instant specification does not describe “the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention” as laid out in MPEP § 2163.02. More specifically, ¶ [0100] of the published application only discloses “the guidance information 175 indicates whether the actual pose of the imaging device 112-b is aligned with the stored pose” and does not disclose a comparison step let alone a comparison step “when the one or more markers were generated.” Accordingly, the instant specification does not convey with reasonable clarity how one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the filing date sought, can show the inventor was in possession of “compare the pose information to the intraoperative pose” and “wherein the guidance information comprises alignment information reflective of a difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the interoperative pose based on the comparing”; thus, fails to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 1 also now recites “store, in response to receiving the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device”; however, the antecedent “user input” is the user input “associated with the first multi-dimensional image set.” The instant specification fails to disclose a user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set while also disclosed as triggering the storing pose information of an ultrasound imaging device. Accordingly, Claim 1 fails to meet the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Similarly, independent Claims 18 and 20 recite “determine a difference between the pose information to the intraoperative pose”; “wherein the guidance information comprises alignment information reflective of the difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the intraoperative pose”; and “storing, based on the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device.” As detailed with respect to Claim 1, the instant specification is silent to these limitations.
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 & 5-9, & 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US PGPUB 20140073907; hereinafter "Kumar") and in further view of Hennersperger et al. (“Towards MRI-Based Autonomous Robotic US Acquisitions: A First Feasibility Study,” (24 October 2016), IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging ( Volume: 36, Issue: 2, February 2017; hereinafter "Hennersperger").
With regards to Claim 1, Kumar discloses a system (system and method for combining pre-operative image with real-time intra-operative imaging for real-time therapeutic guidance; see Kumar Abstract) comprising:
a processor (a computer readable storage medium has a non-transitory computer program stored thereon, to control {i.e. computer controlled or processor} an automated system to carry out various methods disclosed herein; see Kumar ¶ [0120]); and
a memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the processor (a computer readable storage medium has a non-transitory computer program stored thereon, to control {i.e. computer controlled or processor} an automated system to carry out various methods disclosed herein; see Kumar ¶ [0120]), cause the processor to:
generate a first virtual space corresponding to a first multi-dimensional image set, wherein the first multi-dimensional image set is captured preoperatively (acquired pre-operative images also referred to as planning images, e.g. MRI images; see Kumar FIG. 1 & ¶ [0083 & 0099]);
receive a user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set (radiologist, radiation oncologist or an oncological image specialist analyzes pre-operative images to identify and label {i.e. user input} various structures including the objects of interest; see Kumar ¶ [0099]);
generate, in response to receiving the user input, one or more markers of a second virtual space (mapping the object labels {i.e. markers} form the pre-operative image to the intra-operative images; see Kumar ¶ [0101]);
store pose information of one or more markers in association with a second virtual space (defining labels/landmarks {i.e. markers} in the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0101]; i.e. the one or more markers appear in the ultrasound images), wherein the second virtual space corresponds to a second multi-dimensional image set comprising one or more ultrasound images (intra-operative images are based on ultrasound imaging; see Kumar ¶ [0099]; registering between pre-operative coordinate system Ω1,i and intra-operative coordinate system Ω2,i; see Kumar ¶ [0087]), wherein the one or more markers appear in the one or more ultrasound images (defining labels/landmarks {i.e. markers} in the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0101]; i.e. the one or more markers appear in the ultrasound images);
generate an image-based surgical plan in association with the first virtual space based on the pose information of the one or more markers of the second virtual space, wherein the image based surgical plan is generated preoperatively (a therapeutic planning system generates a surgical plan based on the pre-operative images; see Kumar ¶ [0042]);
receive an indication of candidate coordinates associated with the image based surgical plan and the first virtual space (the plan may be defined based on the first imaging modality, and is adapted in real time based on at least the second imaging modality. The plan may comprise a plurality of targets {i.e. candidate coordinates}; see Kumar ¶ [0072]);
While Kumar discloses acquiring intra-operative images with a mechanical tracking arm (see Kumar ¶ [0105]), it appears that Kumar may be silent to the struck-through limitations above. However previously cited Hennersperger teaches of system for automatic robotic 3DUS acquisitions for target imaging during a surgical needle procedures to identify the target and potential risk regions (see Hennersperger Abstract, FIG. 1, & pg. 539, ¶ 2). In particular, Hennersperger teaches of:
store, in response to receiving the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device (Hennersperger teaches of servoing {inherently encompasses positional feedback based on position encoding1};); Hennersperger also teaches that “[T]he integration of ROS and Sunrise.OS as used in this work allows for a full control of the KUKA APIs directly from components being available within ROS. Furthermore, a direct access to the robot state is provided by the KUKA APIs, including native features such as self collision avoidance” {i.e. positional feedback due to collision detection within API based on state awareness}; see Hennersperger pg. 547, ¶ 2; and Hennersperger teaches of various coordinate system transformations as illustrated in FIG. 3 such as the robot- and patient-to-world transformations as detailed above which require an initialization and/or calibration which would inherently store the initial state of the robotic arm and the ultrasound transducer; see Hennersperger pg. 544, ¶ 7; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art of control theory2 would recognize that feedback control algorithm based on an error signal requires an initial state);
determine an intraoperative pose of the ultrasound imaging device (Hennersperger teaches of various coordinate system transformations as illustrated in FIG. 3 such as the robot- and patient-to-world transformations as detailed above which require an initialization and/or calibration which would inherently store the initial state of the robotic arm and the ultrasound transducer; see Hennersperger pg. 544, ¶ 7; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art of control theory would recognize that feedback control algorithm based on an error signal requires an initial state; moreover, Hennersperger teaches that during calibration of the planned path “[T]he robot is commanded in position control mode to move onto the individual points and the distances to the actual intersection points are measured manually with a caliper,” i.e. a user commands {user input} to move to various locations to calibrate the camera-to-world calibration in which said various location indicate a determination of the pose of the ultrasound imaging device mounted thereto; see Hennersperger pg. 545, ¶ 2; finally, Hennersperger teaches that an operative selects a region of interest and selects the start- and endpoint Ps , Pe of a trajectory in the MRI data, i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art of control theory would recognize that the current state {i.e. intraoperative pose} of the robotic arm {e.g. via the KUKA API} is required to commenced the planned trajectory; see Hennersperger pg. 542, ¶ 3);
compare the pose information to the intraoperative pose (FIG. 3 of Hennersperger clearly illustrates the end effector-to-world transform and the camera-to-world transform which, as shown in EQ. 10, that the camera-to-ultrasound is available, one of ordinary skill in the art in matrix algebra and multidimensional control theory would recognize that a transformation matrix is generates a coordinate transform between the ultrasound coordinate system and the camera control system {i.e. which is based on camera calibration of markers as taught on pg. 543, ¶ 1 and similar to cited Kumar}, said transform amounts to a transform);
output, in response to receiving the indication of the candidate coordinates, guidance information for positioning the ultrasound imaging device, wherein the guidance information is provided intraoperatively (an operative selects a region of interest {i.e. candidate coordinates} and selects the start- and endpoint Ps , Pe of a trajectory in the MRI data {i.e. guidance information}; see Hennersperger pg. 542, ¶ 3), and wherein the guidance information comprises alignment information reflective of a difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the interoperative pose based on the comparing (minimizing a difference between current location and desired position is the bedrock of control theory, more specifically, error signal feedback control algorithm rely on the difference between the actual position and a desired position can only be established if the current position of the joints are known; therefore, Hennersperger teaching of the KUKA API & ROS OS inherently teach of robotic control theory and feedback control systems especially considering that Hennersperger regularly references servoing as their motion control); and
move, intraoperatively during a surgical procedure and based on the guidance information, the ultrasound imaging device from the intraoperative pose to generate an image (previously planned trajectory is transferred to a robotic control trajectory for automatic US acquisition; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9) corresponding to a view captured in the first multi-dimensional image set and associated with the one or more markers of the second virtual space (FIG. 3 of Hennersperger illustrates various transformations between the various coordinate systems {i.e. transformation matrices} including the marker at the robot flange used to establish the transformation between the world and camera which is then translated to the end effector to tool transformation which permits the transformation between camera reference frame to US transducer coordinate system {i.e. associated with second virtual space}; see Hennersperger pgs. 542-543, § C. System Calibration).
Hennersperger also teaches of:
the robot provides dynamic movement and flexible adaption of trajectories {i.e. adjust one or more settings} to the working environment (see Hennersperger pg. 541, ¶ 5);
feedback loop {i.e. adjust one or more settings} for compliant motion constrained by the patient or other objects (see Hennersperger pg. 544, ¶ 1);
the force controller implicitly commands the robot to adapt the tool position {i.e. adjust one or more settings} until the surface is reached (see Hennersperger pg. 544, ¶ 2); and
the control of US acquisitions parameters remotely through the Ethernet connection (see Hennersperger pg. 542, ¶ 2).
Kumar and Hennersperger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of hybrid MRI & US surgical planning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kumar to incorporate the above teachings of Hennersperger to provide at least the struck-through limitations. Doing so would aid in to identifying targets and potential risk regions during surgical procedures (see Hennersperger pg. 539, ¶ 2).
It should be appreciated that the same logic pattern and rationale are applied to Claims 18 & 20 as applied to Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 21, modified Kumar teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
translate the pose information (defining labels/landmarks {i.e. pose information} in the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0101]) of the one or more markers to the first virtual space, wherein generating the image-based surgical plan is based on translating the pose information to the first virtual space (deforming the pre-operative image to the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0099 & 0101]; i.e. the pose information from the intra-operative image is used to transform the pre-operative data, thus, the surgical plan updated based on the deformation; see Kumar ¶ [0054]).
With regards to Claim 31, modified Kumar teaches further comprising generating the second virtual space, wherein:
generating the second virtual space comprises segmenting a third virtual space corresponding to the second multi-dimensional image set (segmenting the intra-operative images to generate a 3D anatomical model; see Kumar ¶ [0106]);
the second virtual space comprises a two-dimensional virtual space or a three-dimensional virtual space (3D intra-operative images are based on ultrasound imaging; see Kumar ¶ [0099]; registering between pre-operative coordinate system Ω1,i and intra-operative coordinate system Ω2,i; see Kumar ¶ [0073 & 0087]); and
the third virtual space comprises a three-dimensional virtual space (segmenting the intra-operative images to generate a 3D anatomical model; see Kumar ¶ [0106]).
With regards to Claim 51, modified Kumar of teaches wherein:
the guidance information comprises the pose information of the one or more markers in association with the second virtual space (previously planned trajectory {i.e. guidance information} for imaging the selected ROI {i.e. selected targets or markers} is transferred to a robotic control trajectory for automatic US acquisition; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9); and
the pose information of the one or more markers corresponds to the candidate coordinates in the first virtual space (deforming the pre-operative image to the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0099 & 0101]; i.e. the pose information from the intra-operative image is used to transform the pre-operative data, thus, the surgical plan updated based on the deformation; see Kumar ¶ [0054]).
With regards to Claim 64, modified Kumar teaches of wherein the guidance information comprises an indication of a target point in the second virtual space, wherein the target point is associated with the one or more markers (previously planned trajectory {i.e. guidance information} for imaging the selected ROI {i.e. selected targets or markers or target points} is transferred to a robotic control trajectory for automatic US acquisition; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9).
With regards to Claim 71, modified Kumar teaches of wherein the guidance information comprises an indication of at least one of:
a target trajectory of the ultrasound imaging device with respect to the target point in the second virtual space (previously planned trajectory is transferred to a robotic control trajectory {i.e. target pose} for automatic US acquisition {i.e. second virtual space} of the ROI; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9; wherein the robotic trajectory about the ROI amounts to target trajectory to acquire a target point); and
a hind point of the target trajectory (Pe is the end point or the transferred robotic control trajectory, i.e. hind point).
With regards to Claim 81, modified Kumar teaches of wherein the guidance information comprises an indication of at least one of:
a target trajectory of the ultrasound imaging device with respect to the target point in the physical space (previously planned trajectory is transferred to a robotic control trajectory {i.e. target trajectory} for automatic US acquisition {i.e. second virtual space} of the ROI {i.e. target point}; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9; wherein the robotic trajectory about the ROI amounts to target trajectory to acquire a target point); and
a hind point of the target trajectory (abovementioned Pe is the end point, i.e. hind point).
With regards to claim 94, modified Kumar teaches of wherein:
the stored pose information of the ultrasound imaging device correlates to the candidate coordinates associated with the image-based surgical plan and the first virtual space (previously planned trajectory {of the first virtual space} is transferred to a robotic control trajectory {i.e. alignment information} for automatic US acquisition of the ROI selected from the pre-operative MRI image {i.e. candidate coordinates}; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9; wherein the robotic trajectory includes alignment information and executing the trajectory includes current pose information).
With regards to Claim 111, modified Kumar discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, modified Kumar also teaches of wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to at least one of:
deliver therapy to a subject based on at least one of the one or more markers and the image-based surgical plan (the surgical plan {i.e. based on one or more markers of the surgical plan} includes trajectory and depth of an ablation procedure; see Kumar ¶ [0080 & 0088]), wherein delivering the therapy comprises transmitting one or more therapeutic ultrasound signals toward a region associated with the one or more markers (wherein the ablation procedure includes high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFE) ablation; see Kumar ¶ [0116]); and
deliver diagnostics data associated with the subject based on at least one of the one or more markers and the image-based surgical plan (real-time monitoring and visualizing of the treated region; see Kumar ¶ [0116-0117]).
With regards to Claim 121, modified Kumar teaches of wherein the one or more markers correspond to one or more anatomical elements comprised in the one or more ultrasound images (defining labels/landmarks {i.e. markers of anatomical elements} in the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0101]; i.e. the one or more markers appear in the ultrasound images).
With regards to Claim 131, modified Kumar teaches of wherein generating the image-based surgical plan comprises mapping one or more parameters of a surgical task included in the image-based surgical plan to the pose information of the one or more markers (the surgical plan includes trajectory and depth of an ablation procedure; see Kumar ¶ [0080 & 0088]).
With regards to Claim 141, modified Kumar teaches wherein storing the pose information of the one or more markers is in response to a trigger condition (defining labels/landmarks {i.e. markers of anatomical elements} in the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0101]; i.e. the act of defining them amounts to a trigger condition).
With regards to Claim 151, modified Kumar teaches of wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
transmit one or more ultrasound signals in a physical space corresponding to the second virtual space (previously planned trajectory is transferred to a robotic control trajectory {i.e. alignment information} for automatic US acquisition of the ROI {i.e. target pose}; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9; i.e. the automatic acquisition involves transmitting US signals into the target); and
capture the one or more ultrasound images based on the one or more ultrasound signals (previously planned trajectory is transferred to a robotic control trajectory {i.e. alignment information} for automatic US acquisition of the ROI {i.e. target pose}; see Hennersperger pg. 543, ¶ 7-9; i.e. the automatic acquisition involves receiving reflected US signals from the target).
With regards to Claim 161, modified Kumar teaches of wherein:
wherein the first multi-dimensional image set comprises one or more magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images, one or more computed tomography (CT) images, or one or more multi-dimensional fluoroscopic images (acquired pre-operative images also referred to as planning images, e.g. MRI images; see Kumar FIG. 1 & ¶ [0083 & 0099]).
With regards to Claim 171, modified Kumar teaches of wherein:
the first multi-dimensional image set comprises one or more preoperative images, one or more first intraoperative images, or both (acquired pre-operative images also referred to as planning images, e.g. MRI images; see Kumar FIG. 1 & ¶ [0083 & 0099]); and
the second multi-dimensional image set comprises one or more second preoperative images, one or more second intraoperative images, or both (intra-operative images are based on ultrasound imaging; see Kumar ¶ [0099]; registering between pre-operative coordinate system Ω1,i and intra-operative coordinate system Ω2,i; see Kumar ¶ [0087]).
With regards to Claim 1918, modifed Kumar teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to:
translate the pose information of the one or more markers to the first virtual space, wherein generating the image-based surgical plan is based on translating the pose information to the first virtual space (deforming the pre-operative image to the intra-operative image; see Kumar ¶ [0099 & 0101]; i.e. the pose information from the intra-operative image is used to transform the pre-operative data, thus, the surgical plan updated based on the deformation; see Kumar ¶ [0054]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Hennersperger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graumann et al. (“Robotic Ultrasound Trajectory Planning for Volume of Interest Coverage,” (09 June 2016), : 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA); hereinafter "Graumann").
With regards to Claim 101, modifed Kumar teaches of wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to adjust one or more settings associated with an ultrasound imaging device based on the guidance information (the robot provides dynamic movement and flexible adaption of trajectories {i.e. adjust one or more settings} to the working environment; see Hennersperger pg. 541, ¶ 5; feedback loop {i.e. adjust one or more settings} for compliant motion constrained by the patient or other objects; see Hennersperger pg. 544, ¶ 1; the force controller implicitly commands the robot to adapt the tool position {i.e. adjust one or more settings} until the surface is reached; see Hennersperger pg. 544, ¶ 2),
While modified Kuman teaches that “the control of US acquisitions parameters remotely through the Ethernet connection,” it appears that modified Kumar may be silent to wherein the one or more settings comprises a field of view of the ultrasound imaging device. However, Graumann teaches of robotic ultrasound trajectory planning for volume of interest coverage in which Hennersperger is a named author. More specifically, Graumann teaches wherein the one or more settings comprises a field of view of the ultrasound imaging device (Due to the convex geometry, the overall image width is proportionally increasing with the depth. To obtain a fixed value for the path generation, the horizontal width at the US focus depth (or median depth if multiple focus points are given) is used, i.e. the US focus depth is an ultrasound setting that is adjusted based on the desired trajectory which in turn alters the horizontal width together help define the field of view; see Graumann FIG. 3 caption).
Modified Kumar and Graumann are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robotic ultrasound acquisition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kumar to incorporate the above teachings of Graumann to provide at least wherein the one or more settings comprises a field of view of the ultrasound imaging device. Doing so would aid in maintaining a fixed value for the path generation (see Graumann FIG. 3 caption).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, Applicant contends that Kumar in view of Hennersperger are silent to the newly amended claim limitations. In support, Applicant first argues that “Kumar is generally directed to combining information from a plurality of medical imaging modalities for real time image guidance for a medical procedure. But Kumar has not been shown, and does not appear, to teach, suggest, or disclose at least the above-mentioned claim features.” This arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant also argues that Hennersperger:
“generally mentions that a previously planned trajectory can be transferred to a robotic control trajectory, this general disclosure is not specific enough to disclose or suggest storing, in response to receiving the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device, determining an intraoperative pose of the ultrasound imaging device, and comparing the intraoperative pose to the pose information, let alone outputting the guidance information for positioning the ultrasound imaging device that includes alignment information reflective of a difference between the pose information of the ultrasound imaging device when the one or more markers were generated and the intraoperative pose based on the comparing and then moving the ultrasound imaging device from the intraoperative pose, as recited in claim 1.”
Once again, Applicant relies on a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. More specifically, Applicant’s generalization of the Hennersperger teaching does not meet the standard for “specifically” pointing out how the claim language differs from the Hennersperger teachings. For at least this reason, the argument is not persuasive.
Regardless, the Office respectfully disagrees. Hennersperger teaches that “[I]n an interventional setup, an initial acquisition is performed at the beginning to optimize the robot- and patient-to-world calibrations” (see pg. 544, ¶ 7). One of ordinary skill in the art of control theory would understand that the initial calibration amounts to a broadly interpreted “user input” which is supported by the instant specification lack of special definition of “user input”(see ¶ [0058] wherein the user interface 110 is exampled to receive a user input and not explicitly defined). The mere act of starting the procedure is sufficient to meet to the user input limitation.
Furthermore, it appears that the instant specification fails to provide explicit support for the “user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set” to trigger the storing of pose information of an ultrasound imaging device. According to ¶ [0090] of the published application, “The computing device 102 may store the pose information 156-a, the pose information 157-a and/or the pose information 158-a in response to any example trigger condition described herein” (emphasis added). However, “receiv[ing] a user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set” is not described as a trigger condition. Therefore, “stor[ing], in response to receiving the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device” is not supported by the instant specification. Accordingly, it should be appreciated that Claim 1 recites “receiv[ing] a user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set” (emphasis added); however, neither the claims nor the instant specification limits one of ordinary skill in the art’s interpretation of said “association.” Therefore, any user input during the Hennersperger procedure reads on “a user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set” whether its directly or indirectly related to the first multi-dimensional image set. This interpretation is supported by Applicant’s own instant specification because there is no explicit teaching of “stor[ing], in response to receiving the user input, pose information of an ultrasound imaging device,” i.e. the instant specification does not teach of the user input associated with the first multi-dimensional image set to trigger storing the pose of the ultrasound imaging device.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art in control theory3, which encompasses robotic control systems, would understand that in order to utilize error signal feedback control algorithm, notoriously relied upon by most robotic control systems for position control, the difference between the actual position and a desired position can only be established if the current position of the joints are known. Hennersperger teaches that they have access to the current state of the KUKA robot via the KUKA API (see Hennersperger pg. 547, ¶ 2), the numerous mentions of servoing which inherently relies on feedback control of position encoding, and the established various coordinate system transformations as illustrated in FIG. 3 such as the robot- and patient-to-world transformations. See also < https://web.archive.org/web/20210726154813/https://motion.cs.illinois.edu/RoboticSystems/CoordinateTransformations.html> (published 26 July 2021) for a primer on control theory coordinates and transformations in robotic systems.
In sum, ordinary skill of basic robotic control theory does inform to one of ordinary skill in said art that Hennersperger’s teachings robotic control calibration, KUKA API, ROS framework, servoing, and various coordinate transformations that establish initial positioning and feedback control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Servomotor&oldid=1121788102
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Control_theory&oldid=1121781027 (published 14 November 2022).
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Control_theory&oldid=1121781027 (published 14 November 2022).