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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on February 12, 2026 with respect to the claim objections of claims 2, 9, and 16, the 102 rejection(s) of claims 1-5 and 9-19, and the 103 rejections of claims 7 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of the applicant’s amendments as can be further seen below.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species.
Species A: Wherein the reference plane extends through the fovea centralis (e.g. see claim 21).
Species B: Wherein the reference plane extends through an optic disc (e.g. see claim 22).
The species are independent or distinct because they are alternatives of each other. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
Searching the different species would require, at a minimum, employing different search queries to evaluate the patentability of the unique limitations recited in one species and not the other. This constitutes a different field of search for the species, searching for Species A as described in claim 21 would require one or more queries focused on the reference plane extending through the fovea centralis, which would not likely yield art for Species B.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Brian Parke on May 26, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species A and B, claims 21 and 22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claim 22 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0327394 A1 to Ramirez Luna et al. (hereinafter “Luna”) in view of Lang (WO 2020/102665 A1, with citation to the corresponding US Publication No. US 2022/0079675 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luna teaches:
A robotic imaging system for imaging a target site in an eye (see abstract, line 1 and claim 1: “a stereoscopic camera connected to the robotic arm at the coupling interface, the stereoscopic camera configured to record left and right images of a target surgical site for producing a stream of stereoscopic images of the target surgical site.”), the robotic imaging system comprising:
a stereoscopic camera configured to record a left image and a right image of the target site for producing at least one stereoscopic image of the target site (see claim 1: “a stereoscopic camera connected to the robotic arm at the coupling interface, the stereoscopic camera configured to record left and right images of a target surgical site for producing a stream of stereoscopic images of the target surgical site.”);
a robotic arm operatively connected to the stereoscopic camera, the robotic arm being adapted to selectively move the stereoscopic camera relative to the target site (see claim 1: “a stereoscopic camera connected to the robotic arm at the coupling interface, the stereoscopic camera configured to record left and right images of a target surgical site for producing a stream of stereoscopic images of the target surgical site.”);
wherein the stereoscopic camera includes an optical assembly having at least one lens and defining a working span/working distance (figs. 3-4, para 0088, para 0096, para 0127, and para 0130-0132),
the optical assembly having at least one focus motor/lens motor adapted to move the at least one lens to selectively vary the working span/working distance (para 0088, para 0120, para 0125, and para 0130-0132);
a controller in communication with the robotic arm and having a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded (see abstract: “…The robotic imaging apparatus also includes a processor that is configured to determine a movement sequence for the robotic arm based on a current position of the robotic arm”, para 0014: “Moreover, the robotic imaging apparatus includes at least one processor communicatively coupled to the sensor and the robotic arm. The at least one processor configured to receive the output data from the sensor that is indicative of the translational and rotational forces and determine, using the at least one algorithm in the memory, a movement sequence for the robotic arm based on a current position of the robotic arm and the output data from the sensor.”, para 0203, para 0443, and para 0567),
the controller/processor being configured to determine a change in target depth from an initial/current target position (para 0555-0566), and wherein the change in the target depth being defined as a displacement in position of the target site along an axial direction/z-direction (para 0086-0087, para 0538, and para 0344-0347), and
update/change a specific focal length based in part on the change in the target depth/working distance (also called the optical path) (see fig. 7, 706, para 0130-0132, para 0147-0149, para 0472, and para0474), the controller/processor is adapted to selectively execute an orbital scanning mode/lock-to-target mode (or feature) causing the robotic arm to sweep an orbital trajectory (movement along the virtual sphere) at least partially circumferentially around the eye/target surgical site while maintaining focus (para 0103, para 0583, para 0586, and para 0589-0592), the orbital trajectory subtending an angle between 180 degrees and 300 degrees,
wherein the controller/processor is configured to:
center the stereoscopic camera on a reference plane/ object plane of the eye (fig. 7-700 and 706, 44, fig. 50, para 0059, para 0074, para 0068, para 0085-0086, para 0131-0132, and para 0295), and estimate a first working span/travel distance (aligned with the working direction) to a reference surface of the eye (para 0464, para 0476, and para 0517-0518);
where the working span/distance is adjustable from a first/initial working distance to a second working distance (see para 0130-0132, 0140, 0235, 0255, 0293 ) but does not explicitly disclose
the second working span being a sum of the first working span and a personalized anatomical parameter.
However, Lang teaches systems and methods for adjusting the focal plane of a head mounted display used during surgery and/or during a medical procedure (see abstract). The system (fig. 1) teaches adjusting the focal plane and/or focal point of the display of the virtual data (first working span) to a second working span (the anatomic data or structure) based on the measured distance from the head mounted display to an anatomic data or structure (see abstract, para 0255 and para 0259 – emphasis on the first sentence and last two sentences). However, Luna not Lang explicitly disclose wherein the orbital trajectory subtending an angle between 180 degrees and 300 degrees.
However, in another embodiment of the invention, Luna teaches where the links connected to the stereoscopic camera can move between an angle of 180 and 300 degrees (see figs. 33, figs. 35-40, para 0388, para 0406-0407, para 0414, and para 0416-0420).
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 the teachings of Luna (the embodiment disclosed in figs. 33-40 with the teachings disclosed in the second embodiment shown in fig. 65) with the teachings of Lang to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would result in a reasonable expectation for success, since system described in Lang the embodiment described in Luna would allow for precise, real-time images of the small target surgical site during the surgical procedure, allowing for a more accurate and safe surgical experience.
Regarding claim 2, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein the target site includes the peripheral or outer edge of the retina/ora serrata (para 0103 and para 0563).
Regarding claim 3, Luna as modified teaches:
The robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein:
the orbital trajectory is defined in a spherical coordinate axis (XYZ coordinates) defining a first spherical angle (U) and a second spherical angle (V) (see fig. 65, XYZ coordinates, para 0589-0592);
and the controller is adapted to change a view angle of the orbital trajectory by keeping the first spherical angle/vector (or target) constant while iterating the second spherical angle until a desired viewing angle/sphere end point is reached (para 0565, para 0585, and para 0589-0592).
Regarding claim 4, Luna as modified teaches:
The robotic imaging system of claim 3, wherein:
the controller is adapted to selectively command the orbital trajectory by iterating the first spherical angle between a predefined starting angle and a predefined ending angle while keeping the second spherical angle constant at the desired viewing angle (para 0014, para 0590-0592). Since the system comprises an orbital trajectory that iterates at an angle (u) while keeping the other angle (v) constant, and includes memory and an algorithm defining instructions that specify a rotation direction, speed, duration, or a movement sequence of each joint of the arm based on the current position of the arm, a predefined starting angle and ending angle must be defined since the system accesses a form of memory to control the orbital trajectory of the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 5, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein the orbital trajectory at least partially forms a circle/egg-shape (para 0103, para 0590-0592).
Regarding claim 9, Luna as modified teaches:
The robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein:
and the controller is adapted [to] change a view vector of the stereoscopic camera to a desired viewing angle/position (para 0481, para 0486-0490, para 0499-0500, para 0502, para 0504, para 0533, and para 0603).
Regarding claim 10, Luna as modified teaches:
The robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein:
the controller is configured to lock a respective position of each target point along the orbital trajectory by restricting the respective position of the stereoscopic camera to an outer surface of a virtual sphere (para 0013, para 0524-0525, para 0582-0583),
the virtual sphere defining a radius equal to the specific focal length (see fig. 7-700, annotated figs. 43 and 65 below, para 0131-0132, para 0473, para 0477, and para 0583). Since the focus length in fig. 43 is comparable and/or equal in length to the radius (center of the virtual sphere from the virtual spherical surface), the examiner concludes that the radius is equal/comparable to the specific focal length.
PNG
media_image1.png
557
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
495
1085
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 10, wherein:
the controller is configured to determine a change in height/focus of the stereoscopic camera from an initial camera position (due to a change in the rear working distance lens) (see annotated fig. 43 below, para 0255, para 0293-0294, and para 0472-0474),
the change in the height/focus (alongside of the working distance) being defined as a displacement in position of the stereoscopic camera along an axial direction (see annotated fig. 43 below, para 0088, para 0128, para 0120, para 0168, and para 0197 );
and the controller is configured to update the specific focal length based in part on the change in the height/focus (located along the working distance) of the stereoscopic camera (para 0116, para 0131-0132, para 0235-0236, para 0239, para 0255, and para 0472-0474).
Regarding claim 13, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein:
when the robotic arm is no longer moving (in a physical stop position), the controller/processor is configured to determine motor commands for the at least one focus motor corresponding to a maximum sharpness position/resolution adjustments (or optimal resolution) (see fig. 22-2202, para 0255-0256, para 0324-0325, and para 0470 );
and wherein the maximum sharpness is based on one or more sharpness parameters, including a sharpness signal, a maximum sharpness signal and a derivative over time of the maximum sharpness (para 0373-0374).
Regarding claim 14, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 1, wherein:
in each update cycle, the controller is configured to inject/introduce respective delta values (anti-yaw correction and roll and pitch amounts for the stereoscopic camera) to respective coordinate positions of the orbital trajectory/movement along the virtual sphere (para 0588, para 0593-0594, para 0601).
Regarding claim 15, Luna as modified teaches:
A stereoscopic imaging system for imaging a target site in an eye (title, abstract, and para 0012), the stereoscopic imaging system comprising:
a stereoscopic camera configured to record a left image and a right image of the target site for producing at least one stereoscopic image of the target site (see claim 1: “a stereoscopic camera connected to the robotic arm at the coupling interface, the stereoscopic camera configured to record left and right images of a target surgical site for producing a stream of stereoscopic images of the target surgical site.”);
a robotic arm operatively connected to the stereoscopic camera, the robotic arm being adapted to selectively move the stereoscopic camera relative to the target site (see claim 1: “a stereoscopic camera connected to the robotic arm at the coupling interface, the stereoscopic camera configured to record left and right images of a target surgical site for producing a stream of stereoscopic images of the target surgical site.”);
wherein the stereoscopic camera includes an optical assembly having at least one lens and defining a working span/working distance (figs. 3-4, para 0088, para 0096, para 0127, and para 0130-0132),
the optical assembly having at least one focus motor/lens motor adapted to move the at least one lens to selectively vary the working span/working distance (para 0088, para 0120, para 0125, and para 0130-0132);
a controller in communication with the robotic arm and having a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded (see abstract: “…The robotic imaging apparatus also includes a processor that is configured to determine a movement sequence for the robotic arm based on a current position of the robotic arm”, para 0014: “Moreover, the robotic imaging apparatus includes at least one processor communicatively coupled to the sensor and the robotic arm. The at least one processor configured to receive the output data from the sensor that is indicative of the translational and rotational forces and determine, using the at least one algorithm in the memory, a movement sequence for the robotic arm based on a current position of the robotic arm and the output data from the sensor.”, para 0203, para 0443, and para 0567),
and wherein the controller/processor is adapted to selectively execute an orbital scanning mode/lock-to-target feature causing the robotic arm to sweep an orbital trajectory at least partially circumferentially around the eye/target surgical site while maintaining focus (para 0103, para 0583, para 0586, and para 0589-0592),
wherein the controller/processor is configured to:
center the stereoscopic camera on a reference plane/ object plane of the eye (fig. 7-700 and 706, 44, fig. 50, para 0059, para 0074, para 0068, para 0085-0086, para 0131-0132, and para 0295), and estimate a first working span/travel distance (aligned with the working direction) to a reference surface of the eye (para 0464, para 0476, and para 0517-0518);
where the working span/distance is adjustable from a first/initial working distance to a second working distance (see para 0130-0132, 0140, 0235, 0255, 0293 ) but does not explicitly disclose
the second working span being a sum of the first working span and a personalized anatomical parameter.
However, Lang teaches systems and methods for adjusting the focal plane of a head mounted display used during surgery and/or during a medical procedure (see abstract). The system (fig. 1) teaches adjusting the focal plane and/or focal point of the display of the virtual data (first working span) to a second working span (the anatomic data or structure) based on the measured distance from the head mounted display to an anatomic data or structure (see abstract, para 0255 and para 0259 – emphasis on the first sentence and last two sentences). However, Luna not Lang explicitly disclose wherein the orbital trajectory subtending an angle between 180 degrees and 360 degrees.
However, in another embodiment of the invention, Luna teaches where the links connected to the stereoscopic camera can move between an angle of 180 and 360 degrees (see figs. 33, figs. 35-40, para 0388, para 0406-0407, para 0414, and para 0416-0420).
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 the teachings of Luna (the embodiment disclosed in figs. 33-40 with the teachings disclosed in the second embodiment shown in fig. 65) with the teachings of Lang to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would result in a reasonable expectation for success, since system described in Lang the embodiment described in Luna would allow for precise, real-time images of the small target surgical site during the surgical procedure, allowing for a more accurate and safe surgical experience.
Regarding claim 16, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 15, wherein the target site includes the peripheral or outer edge of the retina/ora serrata (para 0103 and para 0563).
Regarding claim 17, Luna as modified teaches the stereoscopic imaging system of claim 15, wherein:
the orbital trajectory is defined in a spherical coordinate axis (XYZ coordinates) defining a first spherical angle (U) and a second spherical angle (V) (see fig. 65, XYZ coordinates, para 0589-0592);
and the controller is adapted to change a view angle of the orbital trajectory by keeping the first spherical angle/vector (or target) constant while iterating the second spherical angle until a desired viewing angle/sphere end point is reached (para 0565, para 0585, and para 0589-0592); and
the controller is adapted to selectively command the orbital trajectory by iterating the first spherical angle between a predefined starting angle and a predefined ending angle while keeping the second spherical angle constant at the desired viewing angle (para 0014, para 0590-0592). Since the system comprises an orbital trajectory that iterates at an angle (u) while keeping the other angle (v) constant, and includes memory and an algorithm defining instructions that specify a rotation direction, speed, duration, or a movement sequence of each joint of the arm based on the current position of the arm, a predefined starting angle and ending angle must be defined since the system accesses a form of memory to control the orbital trajectory of the robotic arm.
Regarding claim 18, Luna as modified teaches the stereoscopic imaging system of claim 15, wherein:
when the robotic arm is no longer moving (in a physical stop position), the controller/processor is configured to determine motor commands for the at least one focus motor corresponding to a maximum sharpness position/resolution adjustments (or optimal resolution) (see fig. 22-2202, para 0255-0256, para 0324-0325, and para 0470);
and wherein the maximum sharpness is based on one or more sharpness parameters, including a sharpness signal, a maximum sharpness signal and a derivative over time of the maximum sharpness (para 0373-0374).
Regarding claim 19, Luna as modified teaches the stereoscopic imaging system of claim 18, wherein: the sharpness signal is defined as a contrast between respective edges of an object in the at least one stereoscopic image (see para 0373-0374);
and the maximum sharpness signal is defined as a largest sharpness value observed during a scan period (scan period of the left and right images) (para 0373-0374).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna in view of Lang, and further in view of US 5,258,791 to Penney et al. (hereinafter “Penney”).
Regarding claim 21, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 1 containing a reference plane, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference plane extends through the fovea centralis.
However, Penney teaches a system used to measure the refractive characteristics of the human eye (see col. 1, lines 14-18). The system (figs. 1 and 4) teach wherein the reference plane extends from the front of the eye through the fovea centralis (see col. 16, lines 33-62, col. 23, lines 65-67, and col. 24, lines 1-18).
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 the modified teachings of Luna with the teachings of Penney to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing precise, real-time data of the eye to be obtained during the surgical procedure, allowing for a more accurate and safe surgical experience.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna in view of Lang, and further in view of US 2020/0237211 A1 to Copland.
Regarding claim 23, Luna as modified teaches the robotic imaging system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the personalized anatomical parameter is the radius of the eye from the anterior direction to the posterior direction.
However, Copland teaches methods and system for OCT scanning of the cornea and retina (see title and abstract). The system (figs. 3A-3B) teach wherein the eye imaging and diagnostic system stores Intraocular Lens (IOL) data of a patient, wherein the IOL data includes the anterior and posterior radius (see para 0001, para 0009, para 0011, para 0077, and para 0139-0140).
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 the modified teachings of Luna with the teachings of Copland to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would improve the system by allowing precise, real-time data of the eye to be obtained and used during the surgical procedure, allowing for a more personalized, accurate, and safe surgical experience for the patient.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biernat et al. (US 2007/0030448 A1) teaches an optical device for observing and documenting the ocular fundus containing a fundus camera/ophthalmoscope (abstract).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMEL J WEBSTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/K.J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights