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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), 102, and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-19, and 21-24 are currently under examination. Claims 2-3 and 20 have been cancelled and claims 22-24 have been newly added since the Final Office Action of 11 Feb 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The Claim Interpretation of 03 Jul 2025 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is hereby maintained in part. The Claim Interpretation hereby being maintained is “an augmented reality (AR) system configured to display augmented reality information on a headset” recited in claims 1 and 19, and the Claim Interpretation noted for the “AR system” recited in claims 1 and 19 is also being applied to the new claim 22. The limitation “an augmented reality (AR) system configured to display augmented reality information on a headset” does not recite a sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder (in this case, “AR system”) is not preceded by a structural modifier. Additionally, the Claim Interpretation hereby also being maintained is “wherein the position tracking system is in communication with the controller and is configured to track positions of objects” recited in claim 18. See the Non-Final Office Action of 03 Jul 2025.
The Claim Interpretation of 03 Jul 2025 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) directed to “a position tracking system” recited in claim 1, however, is hereby withdrawn as claim 1 explicitly recites the position tracking system comprising a camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-18, and 22 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 “an instrument coupled to a navigational tracker detectable by the position tracking system”. It is unclear whether the navigational tracker is one of “one or more navigational trackers” also recited in claim 1. Claims 4-6 and 8-18 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “an instrument coupled to one of the one or more navigational trackers detectable by the position tracking system”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on the determined first position, display augmented reality information using the AR system”. It is unclear whether “augmented reality information” recited in the limitation is the same or different from “augmented reality information” also recited in claim 1, line 2. Claims 4-6 and 8-18 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “based on the determined first position, display the augmented reality information using the AR system”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the representation is the overlay of a virtual anatomical feature adjacent to the instrument representing a patient nerve”. It is unclear what “the instrument representing a patient nerve” means. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the representation is a patient nerve adjacent to the instrument” in view of [0045] of the specification of the instant application.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the representation is the overlay of a virtual anatomical feature adjacent to the instrument representing a patient vascular structure”. It is unclear what “the instrument representing a patient vascular structure” means. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the representation is a patient vascular structure adjacent to the instrument” in view of [0046] of the specification of the instant application.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the representation is the overlay of a virtual anatomical feature adjacent to the instrument representing a patient bone”. It is unclear what “the instrument representing a patient bone” means. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the representation is a patient bone adjacent to the instrument” in view of [0046] of the specification of the instant application.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “based on the determined position, causing, by the controller, an augmented reality (AR) system configured to display augmented reality information on a headset” and “in communication with the controller, to display augmented reality information …” It is unclear whether “augmented reality information” recited in both limitations are the same or different. Claim 21 inherits the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 19. For purposes of the examination, “augmented reality information” recited in both limitations are being interpreted to be the same.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “augmented reality information comprising a representation of a relationship between at least a distal end of the instrument and a tissue of a patient, wherein the representation is at least one of: … a travel path representing a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument over time displayed contemporaneously”. It is unclear whether “a distal end of the instrument” and “a tip of the instrument” are the same or different. Claim 21 inherits the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 19. For purposes of the examination, “a distal end of the instrument” and “a tip of the instrument” are being interpreted to be the same.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “display augmented reality information on the headset using the AR system”. It is unclear whether “augmented reality information” recited in the limitation is the same or different from “augmented reality information on a headset” recited also in claim 22, lines 2-3. Claims 23-24 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 22.For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “display the augmented reality information on the headset using the AR system”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the augmented reality information comprising a representation of a relationship between at least a distal end of the instrument and a tissue of a patient, wherein the representation is a travel path representing a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument over time displayed contemporaneously”. It is unclear whether “a distal end of the instrument” and “a tip of the instrument” are the same or different. Claims 23-24 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 22. For purposes of the examination, “a distal end of the instrument” and “a tip of the instrument” are being interpreted to be the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0225192) – hereinafter referred to as Jones.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a computer aided surgery (CAS) system (at least Fig. 14) comprising:
an augmented reality (AR) system (Fig. 1: Head Mounted Display (HMD) 100) configured to display augmented reality information on a headset ([0026]-[0027]: HMD 100 comprising display screen 110 and electronic components enclosed within housing 118, and electronic components display information on display screen 110);
a position tracking system comprising a camera configured to track positions of objects attached to one or more navigational trackers (Fig. 14 and [0082]: position tracking system 810 (e.g., cameras spaced apart in the operating room) that track the location of surgical tool 800, HMD 100, and surgical site 804; [0091]: tracking markers attached to surgical site, surgery tool, and HMD);
an instrument coupled to a navigational tracker detectable by the position tracking system (Fig. 14 and [0091]: tracking marker 908 attached to surgery tool and is tracked by cameras within operating room); and
a controller (Fig. 9: electronic components of HMD, including computer equipment 620) configured to:
determine a first position of the instrument ([0116]: tracking system 1208 tracks the relative location and orientation of reference markers attached to the drill bit 1310, the patient site 1300, and the HMD 100, as illustrated in FIG. 14, and computes the relative distance and orientation therebetween);
based on the determined first position, display augmented reality information using the AR system (Fig. 18-23 and [0116]: viewer component 1206 combines the slice with the 3D mesh model 1202 and displays the combined graphical rendering on the HMD 100 so that it is precisely superimposed on the patient site 1300 from the surgeon's point-of-view, graphically displays the virtual trajectory 1312, and displays a cross section slice 1320 that passes through the target location 1314 on the HMD 100),
the augmented reality information comprising a representation of a relationship between at least a distal end of the instrument and a tissue of a patient (Fig. 18-19: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314 of bone model 1302 at cross sectional slice 1320); and
wherein the representation is at least one of: a travel path ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314); or an overlay of a virtual anatomical feature ([0118]: surgeon controls type of anatomical structure displayed on HMD);
if the instrument moves to a second position, update the representation ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 recomputed and dynamically displayed at a sufficient update rate to provide real-time feedback to a surgeon who is repositioning and reorienting the drill bit 1310 and/or the patient site 1300 so that the virtual trajectory 1312 will intersect a target location 1314; Fig. 20-21 and [0120]: display a sequence of cross-sectional slices that are spaced apart along the virtual trajectory 1312 of the drill bit 1310, showing the spatial relationship between the virtual trajectory 1312 and anatomical structure illustrates in the slices 1322, 1324, 1326).
Regarding claim 4, Jones discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Jones further discloses:
wherein the controller (Fig. 9: electronic components of HMD, including computer equipment 620) is further configured to determine a virtual view simulating a view of the tissue of the patient along a field of view of the instrument extending from a tip of the distal end of the instrument based on an axis of the instrument (Fig. 19 and 22-23: cross section slices 1320, 1330, 1332, 1334 relative to end of drill bit 1310; [0119]: slice 1320 of patient site 1300 along plane 19-19 in FIG. 18; [0121]: slices 1330, 1332, 1334 centered along virtual trajectory 1312); and
Regarding claims 16, Jones discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Jones further discloses:
wherein the representation is the overlay of a virtual anatomical feature adjacent to the instrument representing a patient nerve ([0118]: vessel displayed on HMD 100).
Regarding claims 17, Jones discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Jones further discloses:
wherein the representation is the overlay of a virtual anatomical feature adjacent to the instrument representing a patient vascular structure ([0118]: vessel displayed on HMD 100).
Regarding claims 18, Jones discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Jones further discloses:
wherein the representation is the overlay of a virtual anatomical feature adjacent to the instrument representing a patient bone ([0118]: bone displayed on HMD 100).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Quaid et al. (US PG Pub No. 2006/0142657) – hereinafter referred to as Quaid.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses all limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and Jones further discloses:
receiving planning information regarding a position on the patient where the instrument is to be used ([0117]: viewer component 1206 displays on HMD target location 1314 corresponding to a point where the drill bit 1310 would impact the graphically displayed bone model 1302).
Jones does not disclose:
wherein the representation is the trapezoidal prism which represents a working volume of the instrument based on the planning information.
In the same field of surgical system, Quaid, however, teaches:
a representation in a shape representing a working volume of the instrument based on the planning information (Fig. 42: haptic object 705; [0151]: virtual (or haptic) object represent material to be removed from the anatomy; [0158]: haptic object (working volume) having a simple volume modeled with a combination of 3D implicit surface objects; Fig. 47 and [0161]: When the HIP (tip of the tool) enters the active zone, the haptic device 30 is placed in an approach mode in which a guiding line segment 722 is created and extends from entering point 723 to target point 721).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Quaid’s method of a working volume representation. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Jones and Quaid are directed to a surgical system providing a visualization aid to a surgeon. The motivation for the combination would have been “to guide the user's movement of the physical tool 50 so that the tool 50 avoids critical anatomy”, as taught by Quaid ([0161]).
It is further noted that the combination of Jones and Quaid does not explicitly disclose the representation in a shape of trapezoidal prism. However, Quaid discloses in [0158] that the working volume can be represented in various shapes: “Haptic objects having simple volumes are preferably modeled with a combination of 3D implicit surface objects such as planes, spheres, cones, cylinders, etc.” Additionally, a review of the original specification of the instant application does not disclose any criticality of the representation being in a shape of trapezoidal prism. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the representation to be in a shape of trapezoidal prism. The motivation for the modification would have been to represent a working volume in an appropriate shape depending on the volume of tissue subject to a surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 6, Jones in view of Quaid discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Jones further discloses:
wherein the planning information comprises information of a vertebral body (Fig. 18, 20-21: bone model 1302).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Quaid, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Paul et al. (US PG Pub No. 2021/0378752, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 02 Oct 2023) – hereinafter referred to as Paul.
Regarding claim 8, Jones in view of Quaid discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the instrument is a disc removal tool and the working volume corresponds to the distal end of the tool being disposed in an intervertebral disc space between two vertebral bodies.
In the same field of using an augmented reality system, Paul, however, teaches:
wherein the instrument is a disc removal tool ([0147]-[0154]: pre-operatively planned tools including disc box cutter, disc rongeurs, etc.) and the working volume corresponds to boundaries for the distal end of the tool being disposed in an intervertebral disc space between two vertebral bodies ([0153]-[0155]: pre-operatively planned spinal disc preparation and created amount of disc space by removing portion of the intervertebral disc; Fig. 15: disc space bounded by adjacent vertebrae 1410a-b).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Paul’s disc removal tool and working volume. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Paul are directed to using an augmented reality system for a surgical setting. The motivation for the combination would have been to “provid[ing] navigation information to users and/or surgical robots for spine surgeries”, as taught by Paul ([0001]).
Claims 9-11, 19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rafii-Tari et al. (US PG Pub No. 2019/0110839) – hereinafter referred to as Rafii-Tari.
Regarding claim 9, Jones discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the representation is the travel path of the distal end of the instrument over time, the travel path comprising a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument.
It is noted that Jones’s travel path includes a projected travel path of the instrument to the target location ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314).
In the same field of tracking a travel path of an instrument, Rafii-Tari, however, teaches:
a representation being a travel path of a distal end of an instrument over time (Fig. 26 and [0168]: visual indicia 172 illustrated as a darkened triangle signify that the instrument has traveled down a path), the travel path comprising a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument ([0103]: embedded EM tracker in one or more positions of the medical instrument (e.g., the distal tip of an endoscope) may provide real-time indications of the progression of the medical instrument through the patient's anatomy).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Rafii-Tari’s representation of a travel path of a distal end of an instrument over time. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Rafii-Tari are directed to tracking a travel path of an instrument. The motivation for the combination would have been “to provide different information to a user regarding the historical positions of the instrument”, as taught by Rafii-Tari ([0168]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 10, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and Rafii-Tari further teaches (also see claim 9 above):
the travel path providing an indication of portions of the travel path that are more heavily traveled and more lightly traveled (Fig. 26 and [0168]: visual indicia 172 illustrated as a darkened triangle signify that the instrument has traveled down a path and visual indicia 174 illustrated as an undarkened triangle signify a path that has not been explored by the instrument).
It is noted that Fig. 26 of Rafii-Tari discloses heavily traveled path as a longer trail of darkened circles and triangles and lightly traveled path as a shorter trail of darkened circles and triangles.
Regarding claim 11, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and Rafii-Tari further teaches (also see claim 9 above):
the travel path indicating areas that are predicted as requiring more traversing of the distal end of the instrument (Fig. 26 and [0168]: visual indicia 172 illustrated as a darkened triangle signify that the instrument has traveled down a path and visual indicia 174 illustrated as an undarkened triangle signify a path that has not been explored by the instrument).
It is noted that Fig. 26 of Rafii-Tari discloses areas requiring more traversing as a shorter trail of darkened circles and triangles.
Regarding claim 19, Jones discloses a method of using a computer aided surgery (CAS) system (at least Fig. 14) comprising:
determining a first position of an instrument ([0116]: tracking system 1208 tracks the relative location and orientation of reference markers attached to the drill bit 1310, the patient site 1300, and the Head Mounted Display (HMD) 100, as illustrated in FIG. 14, and computes the relative distance and orientation therebetween) by a controller (Fig. 9: electronic components of HMD, including computer equipment 620),
wherein the instrument coupled to a navigational tracker detectable by a position tracking system (Fig. 14 and [0091]: tracking marker 908 attached to surgery tool and is tracked by cameras within operating room),
wherein the position tracking system is in communication with the controller (Fig. 9: electronic components of HMD, including HMD apparatus 100) and is configured to track positions of objects attached to one or more navigational trackers (Fig. 14 and [0082]: position tracking system 810 (e.g., cameras spaced apart in the operating room) that track the location of surgical tool 800, HMD 100, and surgical site 804; [0091]: tracking markers attached to surgical site, surgery tool, and HMD);
based on the determined first position, causing, by the controller, an augmented reality (AR) system configured to display augmented reality information on a headset (Fig. 18-23 and [0116]: viewer component 1206 combines the slice with the 3D mesh model 1202 and displays the combined graphical rendering on the HMD 100 so that it is precisely superimposed on the patient site 1300 from the surgeon's point-of-view, graphically displays the virtual trajectory 1312, and displays a cross section slice 1320 that passes through the target location 1314 on the HMD 100) and,
in communication with the controller, to display augmented reality information comprising a representation of a relationship between at least a distal end of the instrument and a tissue of a patient (Fig. 18-19: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314 of bone model 1302 at cross sectional slice 1320); and
wherein the representation is a travel path ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314); and
based on a determination by the controller that the instrument has moved to a second position using information from the position tracking system (Fig. 14 and [0091]: tracking marker 908 attached to surgery tool and is tracked by cameras within operating room), causing, by the controller, the AR system to display an updated representation of the relationship between the distal end of the instrument and the tissue of the patient ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 recomputed and dynamically displayed at a sufficient update rate to provide real-time feedback to a surgeon who is repositioning and reorienting the drill bit 1310 and/or the patient site 1300 so that the virtual trajectory 1312 will intersect a target location 1314).
It is noted that Jones’s travel path includes a projected travel path of the instrument to the target location ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314).
Jones does not disclose:
the travel path representing a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument over time displayed contemporaneously.
In the same field of tracking a travel path of an instrument, Rafii-Tari, however, teaches:
a representation being a travel path of a distal end of an instrument over time (Fig. 26 and [0168]: visual indicia 172 illustrated as a darkened triangle signify that the instrument has traveled down a path), the travel path comprising a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument ([0103]: embedded EM tracker in one or more positions of the medical instrument (e.g., the distal tip of an endoscope) may provide real-time indications of the progression of the medical instrument through the patient's anatomy).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s method to include Rafii-Tari’s representation of a travel path of a distal end of an instrument over time. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Rafii-Tari are directed to tracking a travel path of an instrument. The motivation for the combination would have been “to provide different information to a user regarding the historical positions of the instrument”, as taught by Rafii-Tari ([0168]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 22, Jones discloses a computer aided surgery (CAS) system (at least Fig. 14) comprising:
an augmented reality (AR) system (Fig. 1: Head Mounted Display (HMD) 100) configured to display augmented reality information on a headset ([0026]-[0027]: HMD 100 comprising display screen 110 and electronic components enclosed within housing 118, and electronic components display information on display screen 110);
an instrument coupled to a navigational tracker (Fig. 14 and [0091]: tracking marker 908 attached to surgery tool and is tracked by cameras within operating room);
a position tracking system comprising a camera configured to track a position of the navigational tracker (Fig. 14 and [0082]: position tracking system 810 (e.g., cameras spaced apart in the operating room) that track the location of surgical tool 800, HMD 100, and surgical site 804; [0091]: tracking markers attached to surgical site, surgery tool, and HMD); and
a controller (Fig. 9: electronic components of HMD, including computer equipment 620) configured to:
determine a first position of the instrument based on a determined position of the navigational tracker ([0116]: tracking system 1208 tracks the relative location and orientation of reference markers attached to the drill bit 1310, the patient site 1300, and the HMD 100, as illustrated in FIG. 14, and computes the relative distance and orientation therebetween);
determine that the instrument has moved to a second position ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 recomputed and dynamically displayed at a sufficient update rate to provide real-time feedback to a surgeon who is repositioning and reorienting the drill bit 1310 and/or the patient site 1300 so that the virtual trajectory 1312 will intersect a target location 1314; Fig. 20-21 and [0120]: display a sequence of cross-sectional slices that are spaced apart along the virtual trajectory 1312 of the drill bit 1310, showing the spatial relationship between the virtual trajectory 1312 and anatomical structure illustrates in the slices 1322, 1324, 1326); and
based on the determined first position and the second position, display augmented reality information on the headset using the AR system (Fig. 18-23 and [0116]: viewer component 1206 combines the slice with the 3D mesh model 1202 and displays the combined graphical rendering on the HMD 100 so that it is precisely superimposed on the patient site 1300 from the surgeon's point-of-view, graphically displays the virtual trajectory 1312, and displays a cross section slice 1320 that passes through the target location 1314 on the HMD 100),
the augmented reality information comprising a representation of a relationship between at least a distal end of the instrument and a tissue of a patient (Fig. 18-19: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314 of bone model 1302 at cross sectional slice 1320); and
wherein the representation is a travel path ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314); or an overlay of a virtual anatomical feature ([0118]: surgeon controls type of anatomical structure displayed on HMD).
It is noted that Jones’s travel path includes a projected travel path of the instrument to the target location ([0117]: virtual trajectory 1312 between drill bit 1310 and target location 1314).
Jones does not disclose:
the travel path representing a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument over time displayed contemporaneously.
In the same field of tracking a travel path of an instrument, Rafii-Tari, however, teaches:
a representation being a travel path of a distal end of an instrument over time (Fig. 26 and [0168]: visual indicia 172 illustrated as a darkened triangle signify that the instrument has traveled down a path), the travel path comprising a series of consecutive positions of a tip of the instrument ([0103]: embedded EM tracker in one or more positions of the medical instrument (e.g., the distal tip of an endoscope) may provide real-time indications of the progression of the medical instrument through the patient's anatomy).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Rafii-Tari’s representation of a travel path of a distal end of an instrument over time. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Rafii-Tari are directed to tracking a travel path of an instrument. The motivation for the combination would have been “to provide different information to a user regarding the historical positions of the instrument”, as taught by Rafii-Tari ([0168]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 23, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 22, as discussed above, and Rafii-Tari further teaches (also see claim 22 above):
the travel path indicates portions of the travel path that are more heavily traveled and portions of the travel path that are more lightly traveled (Fig. 26 and [0168]: visual indicia 172 illustrated as a darkened triangle signify that the instrument has traveled down a path and visual indicia 174 illustrated as an undarkened triangle signify a path that has not been explored by the instrument).
It is noted that Fig. 26 of Rafii-Tari discloses heavily traveled path as a longer trail of darkened circles and triangles and lightly traveled path as a shorter trail of darkened circles and triangles.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Rafii-Tari, as applied to claims 9 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Paul.
Regarding claim 12, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the instrument is a scraper, the tissue of the patient is an intervertebral disc space between two vertebral bodies, and the indication is an area of disc space predicted as requiring more scraping before insertion of an intervertebral implant.
In the same field of using an augmented reality system, Paul, however, teaches:
instrument being a scraper ([0129]-[0155]: pre-operatively planned or intra-operatively used tools including scrapers),
the tissue of the patient is an intervertebral disc space between two vertebral bodies ([0129]-[0155]: pre-operatively planned or intra-operatively created amount of disc space by removing portion of the intervertebral disc), and
an indication is an area of disc space predicted as requiring more scraping before insertion of an intervertebral implant (Fig. 14-15 and [0221]: planned surgical procedure displaying disc gap 1510 during intraoperative stage for execution of the surgical plan; [0129]-[0154]: planned and created amount of disc space by removing a portion of intervertebral disc).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Paul’s utilization of the augmented reality system in a surgical setting. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Paul are directed to using an augmented reality system for a surgical setting. The motivation for the combination would have been to “provid[ing] navigation information to users and/or surgical robots for spine surgeries”, as taught by Paul ([0001]).
Regarding claim 13, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to use the travel path to determine a position of a surface of the patient's skin.
In the same field of using an augmented reality system, Paul, however, teaches:
a controller configured to use the travel path to determine a position of a surface of the patient's skin ([0129]-[0149]: machine learning model 1300 trained based on pre-operative and intra-operative stage data, including planned or used incision location on patient).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Paul’s controller configured to use the travel path to determine a position of a surface of the patient’s skin. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Paul are directed to using an augmented reality system for a surgical setting. The motivation for the combination would have been to “provid[ing] navigation information to users and/or surgical robots for spine surgeries”, as taught by Paul ([0001]).
Regarding claim 14, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari and Paul discloses all limitations of claim 13, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to use the travel path to determine a desired position of an incision on the patient.
In the same field of using an augmented reality system, Paul, however, teaches:
the controller configured to use the travel path to determine a desired position of an incision on the patient ([0129]-[0149]: machine learning model 1300 trained based on pre-operative and intra-operative stage data, including planned or used incision location on patient).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Paul’s controller configured to use the travel path to determine a desired position of an incision on the patient. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Paul are directed to using an augmented reality system for a surgical setting. The motivation for the combination would have been to “provid[ing] navigation information to users and/or surgical robots for spine surgeries”, as taught by Paul ([0001]).
Regarding claim 15, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to use the travel path to determine an envelope of excised tissue from the patient.
In the same field of using an augmented reality system, Paul, however, teaches:
the controller configured to use the travel path to determine an envelope of excised tissue from the patient ([0129]-[0154]: machine learning model 1300 trained based on pre-operative and intra-operative stage data, including planned or created amount of disc space by removing portion of intervertebral disc).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Paul’s controller configured to use the travel path to determine an envelope of excised tissue from the patient. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Paul are directed to using an augmented reality system for a surgical setting. The motivation for the combination would have been to “provid[ing] navigation information to users and/or surgical robots for spine surgeries”, as taught by Paul ([0001]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Rafii-Tari, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walen et al. (US PG Pub No. 2022/0338938) – hereinafter referred to as Walen.
Regarding claim 21, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 19, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
providing virtual geofencing, wherein an alert is generated when the distal end of the instrument is about to enter a no-go area of the patient.
In the same field of providing a surgical navigational guidance, Walen, however, teaches:
providing virtual geofencing ([0058]: boundary generator is a software program or module that generates one or more virtual boundaries for constraining movement and/or operation of the surgical instruments), wherein an alert is generated when the distal end of the instrument is about to enter a no-go area of the patient ([0058]: virtual boundaries or alert zones may also be provided to control operation of the surgical instruments 220, 320, 420 relative to critical anatomical features that the surgeon wishes to avoid, target depths and/or target positions).
It is noted that a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to “virtual geofencing” recited in the limitation as defining virtual boundaries or a no-go area.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Walen’s virtual geofencing. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success, since both Jones and Walen are directed to tracking an instrument during a surgical guidance. The motivation for the combination would have been “to control operation of the surgical instruments 220, 320, 420 relative to critical anatomical features that the surgeon wishes to avoid, target depths and/or target positions”, as taught by Walen ([0058]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Rafii-Tari, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Cooper et al. (US PG Pub No. 2023/0010852, a priority date of 12 Jul 2021) - hereinafter referred to as Cooper.
Regarding claim 24, Jones in view of Rafii-Tari discloses all limitations of claim 22, as discussed above, and Jones does not disclose:
wherein the controller is further configured to use the travel path to determine an angle and a width of a scalpel incision for surgical planning.
In the same field of surgical system, Cooper, however, teaches:
using a travel path to determine an angle and a width of an incision ([0097]: boundary lines extend the length of the femoral implant (or width of incision) and are laterally spaced around the femoral implant (or angle of incision), and these boundary lines are visually displayed so that the surgeon can determine when the cutting tool is moving too far in a lateral direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones’s system to include Cooper’s method of using an instrument’s travel path to determine parameters for an incision. The combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Jones and Cooper are directed to a surgical system providing a visualization aid to a surgeon. The motivation for the combination would have been “establish a safe cutting boundary to guide the surgeon”, as taught by Cooper ([0097]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shekhar et al. (US PG Pub No. 2014/0303491) discloses displaying in an AR system a relationship between a tool and a target (at least Fig. 20);
Calloway et al. (US PG Pub No. 20210169578) discloses displaying in an AR system a relationship between a tool and a target (at least Fig. 30-31); and
Devam et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0249989) discloses displaying historical location of surgical tools as a path data ([0060]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
05/28/2026
Prosecution Insights