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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy for IN 2020/41015993, filed 04/13/2020, has been filed in the instant application.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary amendment was filed on 10/13/2022 has been entered and made of record.
Claims 3, 5,6, 15, 17, 26, 27, 31, 37, 41, and 42 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 10-11, 13-14, 16, 18-24, 29-30, 34-36, 38-40, 42, and 44-112 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 15, 17, 25-28, 31-33, 37, 41, and 43 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2022, 03/10/2023, 12/11/2023, 03/26/2024, 07/10/2024, and 01/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Third-Party submission under 37 CFR 1.290 dated 04/17/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 43 is dependent upon cancelled claim 42. For examination purposes, claim 43 will be considered dependent on claim 1 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 7, 15, 26-27, 31, and 37 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said arthroscopic procedure" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “an arthroscopic procedure” instead.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said previous display" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “a previous display” instead.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said radiological images" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “radiological images” instead.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "said subject" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “a subject” instead.
Claims 26 and 27 recites the limitation “said output” in line 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “an output” instead.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “said digital camera” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “a digital camera” instead.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “said digital camera” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “a digital camera” instead.
Claim 37 recites the limitation “said output” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation will be read as “an output” instead.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 15, 17, 25-28, 31-33, 37, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more.
Step (1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step (2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
Step (2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1:
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites “overlaying said one or more landmarks on said video stream.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of overlaying landmarks onto a video which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “receiving a video stream from an arthroscopic imaging device,” “receiving one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks,” and “displaying said overlay on one or more display devices intraoperatively to be used by an operator during said arthroscopic procedure” amount to no more than mere necessary data gathering and outputting. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Receiving a video stream from an arthroscopic imaging device,” “receiving one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks,” and “displaying said overlay on one or more display devices intraoperatively to be used by an operator during said arthroscopic procedure” amount to no more than mere data gathering and outputting. These elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 3:
Step 1:
Claim 3 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 3 recites “wherein said operations further comprise identifying and labeling one or more elements in said video stream using at least one of a trained computer algorithm and one or more modules, wherein said one or more elements comprise one or more of an anatomical structure, a surgical tool, an operational procedure or action, or a pathology.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of identifying and labelling elements in a video which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “using at least one of a trained computer algorithm” and “one or more modules” provide mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer component with its functionality being recited at a high level of generality. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 3 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Using at least one of a trained computer algorithm” and “one or more modules” provide mere instructions to implement an abstract idea of a generic computer component with its functionality being recited at a high level of generality. These elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5:
Step 1:
Claim 5 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 5 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitation. For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental process that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6:
Step 1:
Claim 6 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 6 recites “wherein said system recommends one or more landmarks based at least partially on said identified elements.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of recommending landmarks based on identified elements from the video which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 7:
Step 1:
Claim 7 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 7 recites “identifying said one or more sets of coordinates for said one or more landmarks.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompasses the mental process of determining coordinates for landmarks which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “storing the one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks,” “changing a view of said display to omit said overlaid landmark from being displayed,” and “reverting said view to said previous display” and “re-overlaying said one or more landmarks” amount to no more than mere necessary data gathering and outputting. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “Storing the one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks,” “changing a view of said display to omit said overlaid landmark from being displayed,” and “reverting said view to said previous display” and “re-overlaying said one or more landmarks” amount to no more than mere data gathering and outputting. These elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 15:
Step 1:
Claims 8-9, 12, and 15 recite a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claims are directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claims 8-9, 12, and 15 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental process that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
These judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claim 17:
Step 1:
Claim 17 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 17 merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitation. For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental process that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “an arthroscope” is simply used as a tool to perform the generic function of providing video. Thus, this is insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “An arthroscope” is simply used as a tool to perform the generic function of providing video. This element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 25-28:
Step 1:
Claims 25-28 recite a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claims are directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claims 25-28 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitation. For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental process that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “one or more computer processors,” “one or more camera control units,” and “a digital camera” are simply used as tools to perform the generic computer function of receiving video. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 25-28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “One or more computer processors,” “one or more camera control units,” and “a digital camera” are simply used as tools to perform the generic computer function of providing video. These elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 31-33, 37:
Step 1:
Claims 31-33 and 37 recite a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claims are directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claims 31-33 and 37 merely incorporate generic tools to the previously recited abstract idea limitation. For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental process that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “a camera control unit,” “a light source,” and “a digital camera” are simply used as tools to perform the generic function of obtaining video. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 31-33 and 37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “A camera control unit,” “a light source,” and “a digital camera” are simply used as tools to perform the generic function of obtaining video. These elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claims are ineligible.
Claim 41:
Step 1:
Claim 41 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 41 merely incorporates generic tools to the previously recited abstract idea limitation. For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental process that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “a touchscreen device” is simply used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of obtaining input. Thus, it is insignificant extra-solution activity. This additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claim is thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 41 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. “A touchscreen device” is simply used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of obtaining input. This element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 43:
Step 1:
Claim 43 recites a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 43 recites “wherein said one or more landmarks are tracked during said minimally invasive procedure, further wherein said tracking of one or more landmarks is associated with said set of coordinates of said one or more landmarks relative to at least an anatomical structure.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these limitations encompasses the mental process tracking landmarks with coordinates which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US 2013/0211232 A1) (hereafter, “Murphy”) in view of Chabanas et al. (US 2013/0096373 A1) (hereafter, “Chabanas”).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses a system for assisting a minimally invasive procedure [A surgical system ... configured to overlay onto the real-time image data from a stored surgical plan, para 0009] the system comprising one or more computer processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that are operable, when executed by said one or more computer processors, to cause said one or more computer processors to perform operations comprising [the surgical plan generator 202, registration unit 304 and composite image generator 403 may be part of the same computer, such as programs executed by one or more processors ... the surgical plan generator 202 is a computer including processing circuitry to analyze and compare a 3-D image and stored images or characteristics, para 0027, para 0034]: receiving a video stream from an arthroscopic imaging device [the arthroscope may include a video camera to capture real-time video images of the surgical site ... during registration and surgery, real-time images of a surgical site are obtained, para 0020]; overlaying said one or more landmarks on said video stream [the location information obtained during registration of the surgical site is used to overlay the registered surgical plan ... onto the real-time images generated by the arthroscope to generate a composite image, para 0023]; and displaying said overlay on one or more display devices intraoperatively to be used by an operator [Surgery is performed based on the composite image ... the composite image may be displayed on a display device provided to a surgeon ... as the surgery is performed, the data from the surgical plan is updated based on the real-time images ... overlaying the arthroscopic surgical plan onto a real-time image during a surgical procedure, para 0016, para 0025, 0016] during said arthroscopic procedure.
Murphy fails to explicitly disclose by allowing computer-implemented arbitrary landmark placement, receiving one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks.
However, Chabanas discloses by allowing computer- implemented arbitrary landmark placement [determining a bone reference coordinate system from the anatomical landmarks, para 0011], receiving one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks [from the anatomical landmarks, a bone reference coordinate system Rbone=(OF, XF, YF, ZF) is determined, para 0053].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy by incorporating the teachings of Chabanas with landmarks and coordinates to safely access areas during surgery, as recognized by Chabanas.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chabanas with Murphy to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, which claim 1 is incorporated, Murphy fails to explicitly disclose wherein said one or more sets of coordinates of said one or more landmarks is generated from one or more medical images of a subject.
However, Chabanas discloses wherein said one or more sets of coordinates of said one or more landmarks is generated from one or more medical images of a subject [from a particular bone surface S and the 3D image, it is possible to determine anatomical landmarks (points and axis) ... intra-operatively, if the patient images are registered to the patient coordinate system using one of the numerous image-guided surgery registration methods, then the characteristic elements built in Rbone are determined in the intra-operative patience coordinate system, para 0053, 0072].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy by incorporating the teachings of Chabanas determine characteristic elements intra-operatively in the patient coordinate system, as recognized by Chabanas.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chabanas with Murphy to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, which claim 1 is incorporated, Murphy discloses wherein said radiological images [the registration is performed with two or more imaging devices including ... one or more of an x-ray imaging device to obtain x-ray images, para 0020] are associated with a shoulder, a knee, or a hip of said subject [the 3-D image is generated based on a combination of an MRI image with an x-ray computed tomography (CT) scan. In one embodiment, the target site is a bone structure, such as a joint. In one embodiment, the joint is a hip joint, para 0017].
Regarding claim 17, which claim 1 is incorporated, Murphy discloses wherein said video stream is provided by an arthroscope during an arthroscopic procedure [during registration and surgery, real time images of a surgical site are obtained ... the arthroscope may include a video camera to capture real-time video images of the surgical site, para 0020].
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2013/0211232 A1) in view of Chabanas (US 2013/0096373 A1), as applied above, and further in view of Barral et al. (US 2019/0069957 A1) (hereafter, “Barral”).
Regarding claim 3, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appear to explicitly disclose wherein said operations further comprise identifying and labeling one or more elements in said video stream using at least one of a trained computer algorithm and one or more modules, wherein said one or more elements comprise one or more of an anatomical structure, a surgical tool, an operational procedure or action, or a pathology.
However, Barral discloses wherein said operations further comprise identifying and labeling one or more elements in said video stream using at least one of a trained computer algorithm and one or more modules [processing apparatus 107 may identify anatomical features in the video using a machine learning algorithm, and generate an annotated video where the anatomical features from the video are accentuated, para 0026], wherein said one or more elements comprise one or more of an anatomical structure, a surgical tool, an operational procedure or action, or a pathology [pathology (the examiner interprets one or more elements to require only one limitation): processing apparatus 107 may identify diseased portions (e.g., tumor, lesions, etc.) and healthy portions (e.g., an organ that looks “normal” relative to a set of established standards), para 0026].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Barral with landmarks and coordinates to safely access areas during surgery, as recognized by Barral.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barral with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, which claim 3 is incorporated, neither Murthy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein said one or more modules comprise video stream decomposition, tool recognition, anatomy recognition, tool tracking, gesture recognition, landmark point registration, or anatomy and landmark tracking.
However, Barral discloses wherein said one or more modules comprise video stream decomposition, tool recognition, anatomy recognition, tool tracking, gesture recognition, landmark point registration, or anatomy and landmark tracking [tool tracking (the examiner interprets the one or more modules to require only one limitation): sensors in the arms of surgical robot 121 may be used to determine the position of the arms relative to organs and other anatomical features. For example, surgical robot may store and record coordinates of the instruments at the end of the arms, and these coordinates may be used in conjunction with video feed to determine the location of the arms and anatomical features ... these sensors may provide information to a processor (which may be included in surgical robot 121, processing apparatus 107, or other device), para 0029].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Barral with tool tracking to detect when instruments may be outside of the surgical path, as recognized by Barral.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barral with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, which claim 3 is incorporated, Murphy fails to explicitly disclose wherein said system recommends one or more landmarks based at least partially on said identified elements.
However, Chabanas discloses wherein said system recommends one or more landmarks based at least partially on said identified elements [it is possible to determine anatomical landmarks (points and axis) that represent critical geometrical reference elements ... such intra-operative data can be landmark points collected using a navigation system during the surgical procedure, para 0053, 0073].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy by incorporating the teachings of Chabanas by recommending landmarks to consider critical areas in the procedure, as recognized by Chabanas.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barral with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 7-9, 31-33, 37, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2013/0211232 A1) in view of Chabanas (US 2013/0096373 A1), as applied above, and further in view of Dumpe et al. (WO 2020/047051 A1) (hereafter, “Dumpe”).
Regarding claim 7, which claim 1 is incorporated, Murphy fails to explicitly disclose wherein said operations further comprise: storing the one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks; changing a view of said display to omit said overlaid landmark from being displayed; reverting said view to said previous display; identifying said one or more set of coordinates for said one or more landmarks; and re-overlaying said one or more landmarks.
However, Chabanas discloses wherein said operations further comprise: identifying said one or more set of coordinates for said one or more landmarks [from the anatomical landmarks, a bone reference coordinate system Rbone=(OF, XF, YF, ZF) is determined, para 0053].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy by incorporating the teachings of Chabanas with landmarks and coordinates to safely access areas during surgery, as recognized by Chabanas.
Neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein said operations further comprise: storing the one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks; changing a view of said display to omit said overlaid landmark from being displayed; reverting said view to said previous display; identifying said one or more set of coordinates for said one or more landmarks; and re-overlaying said one or more landmarks.
However, Dumpe discloses wherein said operations further comprise: storing the one or more sets of coordinates of one or more landmarks [the CASS 200 can compare and register the location data of bony landmarks collected by the surgeon, para 0057]; changing a view of said display to omit said overlaid landmark from being displayed [as an alternative or supplement to the display 225, one or more members of the surgical staff may wear an Augmented Reality (AR) Head Mounted Device (HMD). For example, ... the surgeon 211 is wearing an AR HMD 255 that may, for example, overlay pre-operative image data on the patient, para 0059]; reverting said view to said previous display [the display 225 can also include information about the anatomy of the surgical target region including the location of landmarks ... the surgeon can cycle through these images ... instructing the system to advance or rewind the display, para 0102, 0151]; and re-overlaying said one or more landmarks [as an alternative or supplement to the display 225, one or more members of the surgical staff may wear an Augmented Reality (AR) Head Mounted Device (HMD). For example, ... the surgeon 211 is wearing an AR HMD 255 that may, for example, overlay pre-operative image data on the patient, para 0059].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe to display the information in real-time, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, which claim 7 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein said operator activates said changing and said reverting steps
However, Dumpe discloses wherein said operator activates said changing and said reverting steps [the surgeon can cycle through these images, para 0151].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe for the operator can see specific information as needed, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, which claim 7 is incorporated, Murphy discloses wherein said changing a view step is activated automatically based on a change in an identified anatomical structure or pathology [as the surgery is performed, the data from the surgical plan is updated based on the real-time images. For example, if a point-of-view of the real-time images changes, the data from the surgical plan overlaid onto the real-time image also changes to correspond to the changed point-of-view. In another embodiment, if portions of the bone structure are removed in the surgery, the surgical plan is changed to reflect the changed shape of the bone structure, para 0025].
Regarding claim 31, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose further comprising a camera control unit configured to control a light source, capture digital information produced by said digital camera.
However, Dumpe discloses further comprising a camera control unit configured to control a light source, capture digital information produced by said digital camera [a combination of IR and visible light cameras can be used in an array. Various illumination sources, such as an IR LED light source, can illuminate the scene, para 0053].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe to illuminate the scene for imaging purposes, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, which claim 31 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appear to explicitly disclose wherein said camera control unit converts said digital information produced by said digital camera into said video stream.
However, Dumpe discloses wherein said camera control unit converts said digital information produced by said digital camera into said video stream [components may stream data to the Surgical Computer 250 in real-time or near real-time during surgery, 0107].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe for real-time video during surgery, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, which claim 31 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein said camera control unit record said digital information produced by said digital camera in a memory device.
However, Dumpe discloses wherein said camera control unit record said digital information produced by said digital camera in a memory device [the powered impaction device includes feedback sensors that gather data during instrument use, and send data to a computing device such as a controller within the device or the Surgical Computer 250. This computing device can then record the data for later analysis and use, para 0072].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe for future analysis, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Regarding claim 37, which claim 31 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein said camera control unit is configured to overlay said output from with said one or more computer processors with said video stream.
However, Dumpe discloses wherein said camera control unit is configured to overlay said output from with said one or more computer processors with said video stream [registration process that registers the CAS 200 to the relevant anatomy of the patient can also involve the use of anatomical landmarks, such as landmarks on a bone or cartilage ... display 225 overlays image information collected from various modalities ... collected pre-operatively or intra-operatively, para 0056, 0059].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe to provide various view of patient’s anatomy in real-time, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 37.
Regarding claim 43, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein said one or more landmarks are tracked during said minimally invasive procedure, further wherein said tracking of one or more landmarks is associated with said set of coordinates of said one or more landmarks relative to at least an anatomical structure.
However, Dumpe discloses wherein said one or more landmarks are tracked [tracking system 620 can be calibrated to provide a localized 3D coordinate system within which the implant host 601 and one or more surgical tools can be spatially tracked, para 0182] during said minimally invasive procedure [surgical navigation systems such as the CASS 200 often employ various forms of computing technology to perform a wide variety of standard and minimally invasive surgical procedures and techniques, para 0047], further wherein said tracking of one or more landmarks is associated with said set of coordinates of said one or more landmarks [tracking system 620 can be calibrated to provide a localized 3D coordinate system, para 0182] relative to at least an anatomical structure [track and navigate the placement of instruments and implants relative to the body of a patient, para 0047].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Dumpe to accurately determine location and orientation, as recognized by Dumpe.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dumpe with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 43.
Claims 25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2013/0211232 A1) in view of Chabanas (US 2013/0096373 A1), as applied above, and further in view of Charron et al. (US 10,543,046 B2) (hereafter, “Charron”).
Regarding claim 25, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appear to explicitly disclose wherein said one or more computer processors receive said video stream from one or more camera control units using a wired media connection.
However, Charron discloses wherein said one or more computer processors receive said video stream from one or more camera control units using a wired media connection [the video capture device 706 may be a camera ... that captures digital video data in real-time and has an interface to transmit the video to a computer processor 705 in real-time ... the electronic communication may be facilitated by, for example, one or more busses, or other wired or wireless connections, Col 4, line 17; Col 9, line 46-48].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Charron for real-time transmission, as recognized by Charron.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Charron with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
Regarding claim 27, which claim 25 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein a latency between receiving said video stream from the one or more camera control units and overlaying said output and said video stream is no more than a time between two consecutive frames from said digital camera.
However, Charron discloses wherein a latency between receiving said video stream from the one or more camera control units and overlaying said output and said video stream is no more than a time between two consecutive frames from said digital camera [the video capture device 706 has a low latency analog to digital converter that converts the image viewed through the lens of the video capture device 706 to frames of digital video in real-time. The digital video data is transmitted in real-time via an electronic interface to the computer processor 705 with low latency, Col 5, line 6-11].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Charron because for real-time transmission with low latency, as recognized by Charron.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Charron with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, which claim 1 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appear to explicitly disclose wherein said one or more computer processors receive said video stream from one or more camera control units using a network connection.
However, Charron discloses wherein said one or more computer processors receive said video stream from one or more camera control units using a network connection [the video capture device 706 may be a camera ... that captures digital video data in real-time and has an interface to transmit the video to a computer processor 705 in real-time ... the electronic communication may be facilitated by, for example, one or more busses, or other wired or wireless connections ... the processors may be ... loosely coupled, e.g., by being connected by a wide-area network, Col 4, line 17-20; Col 9, line 46-51].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murphy in view of Chabanas by incorporating the teachings of Charron for real-time transmission, as recognized by Charron.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above with known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Charron with Murphy and Chabanas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2013/0211232 A1) in view of Chabanas (US 2013/0096373 A1) and further in view of Charron (US 10,543,046 B2), as applied above, and Miller et al. (US 10,806,325 B2) (hereafter, “Miller”).
Regarding claim 26, which claim 25 is incorporated, neither Murphy nor Chabanas appears to explicitly disclose wherein a latency between receiving said video stream from the one or more camera control units and overlaying said output and said video stream is at most 40 milliseconds (ms) to accommodate a digital camera with about 24 frames per second (fps).
However, Charron discloses wherein a latency between receiving said video stream from the one or more camera control units and overlaying said output and said video stream is at most 40 milliseconds (ms) [each processed image frame may be produced and displayed in preferably less than 0.1 seconds, or more preferably less than 0.05 seconds or 0.02 seconds, after the corresponding image frame was c