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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment received 3/26/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed 1/28/2026 has been made on record in light of the RCE filed 4/27/2026. Claims 1-4, 8, 11, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 25, 27-28, 30, and 32-34 remain pending. It is noted claims 2 and 11 are listed as currently amended, but the amendments are the same as claims 2 and 11 from the amendments filed 10/29/2025, thus the indicator is incorrect. To expedite prosecution, claims 2 and 11 will be noted as previously presented and examined as such.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the rejection of claim 1 has been respectfully considered but not persuasive. While the amendment now discloses the tracking configurations including a tool tracking configuration and a body portion tracking configuration, both configurations are able to be options, but selection of one is independent from the other as seen in the flowcharts of figure 6 (showing the tool tracking configuration) and figure 7 (showing the body portion tracking configuration), which means that both cannot be done simultaneously. As such, the previously cited prior art of Beck and Nawana still teaches the amendments, wherein the tool tracking configuration is determined as fully disclosed below. It is noted that the tool tracking configuration has a separate tracking result as seen in figure 6, thus the tracking result disclosed within the independent claims is only directed to the body tracking portion.
Lastly, the examiner recommends further limiting the independent claims to only the body portion tracking configuration and not the tool (instead, place the tool tracking configuration as a dependent claim) as discussed in the interview dated 3/4/2026.
Based on these facts, this action is made Non-Final.
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 3, 4, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim discloses “configured to determine a tool tracking configuration…” but it is unclear if it is referring to the same tool tracking configuration already disclosed within independent claim 1 or not. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume it is referring to the same as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim discloses a first and second tool tracking step for tracking the tool entering and exiting the body direction, respectfully, but claim 3 discloses a tool tracking step that also tracks the tool entering and exiting the body direction. Thus, it is unclear if the tool tracking step in claim 3 is the same as the first and second tool tracking step in claim 4, or different from it.
Regarding claim 11, the claim discloses, “whether an integrity of the object has moved across the body wall.” This is unclear as the applicant’s originally filed specification discloses “an integrity metric of the object after it has moved across the body wall…” as seen on Page 13, Lines 28-30. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by the integrity of the object in relation to the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11, 14, 19-20, 22, 25, 27, 30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck (US 20160354152 A1) in view of Nawana (US 20140081659 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beck teaches an object tracking system comprising: a memory (Beck, memory, [0115]); a processing unit including one or more processors coupled to the memory, the processing unit configured to (Beck, processor, [0115]): receive first image data from a first image sensor exterior to a body, the first image data including data of an object to track (Beck, Fig. 5, receive a first image data from a first image sensor exterior to the body 100, including data of the object/instrument 110 to track, [0072-0074]); receive second image data from a second image sensor interior to the body, the second image data including data of the object (Beck, Fig. 5, receive a second image data from a second image sensor interior to the body 130, the arthroscopic camera being inserted in the patient’s body, the second image data including data of the object 110, [0073-0074]); determine a first registration between the first image sensor and the second image sensor (Beck, determine a first registration between the first image sensor and the second image sensor (“arthroscopic camera [second image sensor] is registered by sensor 100 [first image sensor]”), [0073-0074]).
However, Beck fails to teach where Nawana teaches to determine a tracking configuration from a plurality of tracking configurations, wherein the plurality of tracking configurations include a tool tracking configuration and a body portion tracking configuration (Nawana, determine tracking configuration/plan to follow based on type of object (tracking tool instrument and tracking whether the object is soft tissue to be resected), [0232-0234]), wherein the tool tracking configuration is determined based on a determination that the object includes a tool for performing an operation in the body (Nawana, tracking the insertion and removal of the instrument in the surgical space, as well as the actions of the instrument, [0232]), wherein the body portion tracking configuration is determined based on a determination that the object includes a plurality of sub-portions of a body portion, wherein the body portion tracking configuration includes one or more tracking directions for the body portion; in response to a determination of the body portion tracking configuration, track the object as the plurality of sub-portions move across a body wall of the body based on the first image data, the second image data, and the first registration to generate a plurality of sub-portion tracking results; and generate a tracking result to indicate a status of movement of the object across the body wall, wherein the tracking result is based on the plurality of sub-portion tracking results (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Beck using the teachings of Nawana to include Nawana’s tool tracking configuration to Beck’s object tracking for surgery. Doing so would improve tracking before and during surgery, which would be used to ensure the tool is able to correctly and accurately perform the surgery.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking configuration including one or more tracking steps (Nawana, tracking the surgery plan includes one or more tracking steps to ensure its success, [0232-0234]); and wherein the processing unit is configured to track the object by performing the one or more tracking steps (Nawana, object is tracked by performing the tracking steps, [0232-0234]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the processing unit is further configured to determine a tool tracking configuration in response to determining that the object includes a tool for performing an operation in the body (Nawana, tracking the insertion and removal of the instrument in the surgical space, as well as the actions of the instrument, [0232]), tool tracking configuration includes a tool tracking step to track the tool moving in an entering-body direction or an exiting-body direction, the entering-body direction being from exterior to the body to interior to the body, and the exiting-body direction being from the interior to the body to the exterior to the body (Nawana, tracking the insertion and removal of the instrument in the surgical space, [0232]), the processing unit is configured to track the object by performing at least the tool tracking step (Nawana, tracking the actions of the instrument, [0232]), and the processing unit is configured to generate the tracking result based on the tool tracking configuration (Nawana, logging the motions of the instrument in the surgical space, [0232]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the processing unit is further configured to determine a tool tracking configuration in response to determining that the object includes a tool for performing an operation in the body (Nawana, tracking the insertion and removal of the instrument in the surgical space, as well as the actions of the instrument, [0232])), the tool tracking configuration including a first tool tracking step and a second tool tracking step, the first tool tracking step for tracking the tool moving in an entering-body direction from exterior to the body to interior to the body, and the second tool tracking step for tracking the tool moving in an exiting-body direction from the interior to the body to the exterior to the body ((Nawana, tracking the insertion and removal of the instrument in the surgical space, [0232]); the processing unit is configured to track the object by performing at least the first and second tool tracking steps (Nawana, tracking the actions of the instrument, [0232]); and the processing unit is configured to generate the tracking result based on the tool tracking configuration (Nawana, logging the motions of the instrument in the surgical space, [0232]), wherein the status indicates a motion status of the tool moving out of the body after the operation (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the status is only related to the body portion tracking configuration, and the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to: determine a measurement of the object after the object has moved across the body wall; and generate the tracking result based on the measurement (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the processing unit is further configured to: in response to determining that the object includes a plurality of sub-portions of a body portion, determine the measurement based on an aggregation of individual measurements of sub- portions of the plurality of sub-portions; or generate a measurement difference by comparing the measurement of the object with a reference measurement, the reference measurement being of the object before the object moves across the body wall, and generate the tracking result by generating a confirmation based on the measurement difference, the confirmation indicating whether an entirety of the object has moved across the body wall or whether an integrity of the object has moved across the body wall (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking result includes a path of the object moving across the body wall (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking results are used to determine an operation status associated with performing an operation associated with the object (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above in claim 1).
Regarding claims 20, 22, 25, 30, and 32 the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claims 20, 22, and 25 and the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claims 30 and 32 (Beck, machine-readable media, [0115]) corresponds to the system of claims 1, 3, and 8, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the method of claim 25, further comprising: generating a measurement difference by comparing the measurement of the object with a reference measurement, the reference measurement being of the object before the object moves across the body wall; wherein generating the tracking result comprises using the measurement difference (this scenario does not take place as both tracking configurations cannot be determined simultaneously, only one can be determined; in this instance, the tool tracking configuration is the only one determined as fully disclosed above in claim 20).
Regarding claim 33, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated herein. In addition, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 33 (Beck, machine-readable media, [0115]) corresponds to the method of claim 27, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claims 15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Qiu (US 20200367970 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Beck and Nawana fails to teach where Qiu teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: determine a second registration between the first image sensor and a common reference (Qiu, Figs. 8, 9, determine a registration between first image sensor and a common reference, [0241-0247, 0252]); determine a third registration between the second image sensor and the common reference (Qiu, Figs. 8, 9, determine another registration between second image sensor and the common reference, [0241-0247, 0252]); and cause to be displayed on a display, a representation of the first image data and second image data transformed to the common reference based on the second registration and the third registration respectively (Qiu, “With spatial registration and tracking, the virtual surgical plan can be translated to a real-time environment where feedback is provided to the surgeon while performing the procedure,” including “displaying the virtual-space image of the tool on a display,” the virtual space-image being generated based on the registered, transformed first and second image data, [0228, 0302]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beck, as modified by Nawana, using the teachings of Qiu to include Qiu’s registration of the first and second sensors to a common reference for display to Beck’s, as modified by Nawana, registration between sensors and between the sensors and tools for display. Doing so would improve image registration for display by providing registration using a common reference, which would be used to transform the image data for a clear and usable display for surgical operation.
Regarding claim 28, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 28 corresponds to the system of claim 15, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claims 17 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claims 1 and 30 above, further in view of Bush (US 20190269469 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Beck and Nawana fails to teach where Bush teaches further comprising a manipulator assembly, wherein the processing unit is further configured to: operate a tool using the manipulator assembly based on the tracking result (Bush, as the surgeon operates the robotic arm/manipulator assembly, “the navigation system 32 tracks the location of the tool assembly 40, 41 and/or the robotic arm 36 and provides” automatic operational feedback/automatic operation of the tool based on the tracking result, [0129]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Beck, as modified by Nawana, using the teachings of Bush to include Bush’s operation of a tool using a manipulator assembly based on the tracking result to Beck’s, as modified by Nawana, operation of a tool based on the tracking result. Doing so would improve operation of a tool based on the tracking result by providing a manipulator assembly, which would be used to more efficiently operate the tool.
Regarding claim 34 the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated herein. In addition, the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 34 (Beck, machine-readable media, [0115]) corresponds to the system of claim 17, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights