DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Claim(s) 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, 18, 21, 23-24, 26, 29, 31 have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 11, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 25, 27-28, 30, 32-34 is/are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/29/2025, overcome the objection(s) to claim(s) 27. Therefore, the objection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/29/2025, overcome the 112 rejection(s) to claim(s) 11. Therefore, the 112 rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, in pages 9-11 filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102/103 rejection(s) of the amended claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art Nawana. Further discussion can be found in the prior art rejection below.
As such, this action is FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, 14, 19-20, 25, 27, 30, 32-33 is/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 (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, [0073-0074]); 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]); track the object moving across a body wall of the body based on the first image data, the second image data, and the first registration (Beck, “The data from sensor 100 may be displayed as an overlay over the arthroscopic video to create an augmented arthroscopic display 134. Augmented arthroscopic display 134 shows projected instrument path 120 of instrument 110 being placed within the shoulder joint of the body 140,” thereby tracking the object/instrument as it moves across the body wall and enters the body, using image data from the first sensor 100, data from the second, arthroscopic sensor 130, and the first registration, as the required correlation between the video/image data for the display is made possible through the registration, [0073-0074]); and generate a tracking result to indicate a status of movement of the object across the body wall (Beck, Figs. 5, generate and display a tracking result to indicate the status of movement of the object/instrument across the body wall/as it enters the body, [0073-0074]).
However, Beck fails to teach where Nawana teaches to determine a tracking configuration based on a type of the object, wherein a body portion tracking configuration is determined based on a determination that the object incudes a plurality of sub-portions of a body portion (Nawana, determine tracking configuration/plan to follow based on type of object (e.g. if the object is soft tissue to be resected), wherein a body portion tracking configuration/plan is determined based on a determination that the object includes a plurality of sub-portions of a body portion, and therefore a specific amount of sub-portions must be resected, which will be checked throughout the procedure, [0232-0234]): track the object as the plurality of sub-portions move across a body wall of the body based on the first image data and the first registration to generate a plurality of sub-portions tracking results (Nawana, track the object as the plurality of sub-portions move across a body wall of the body based on the image data and registration to generate a plurality of sub-portions tracking results (with different signals for different tracked resection amounts), [0217, 0232-0234, 0240]); 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 (Nawana, generate a tracking result to indicate a status of movement/removal of the object across the body wall, wherein the tracking result is based on the plurality of sub-portion tracking results and their removals, [0232-0234]).
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 sub-portion tracking for surgery to Beck’s object tracking for surgery. Doing so would improve tracking during surgery by providing sub-portion tracking, which would be used to ensure the correct amount of tissue is removed during surgery.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking configuration includes 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 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 (Beck, determine measurements of the object/instrument after insertion, such as direction, depth, pathway (direction, orientation), and position, [0050-0052, 0059, 0066, 0071-0074]); and generate the tracking result based on the measurement (Beck, generate and display the tracking result based on the measurements, [0050-0052, 0066, 0071-0074]).
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 (Beck, Figs. 5, 10B, tracking result includes a path of the object/instrument moving across the body wall/being inserted, [0073-0074, 0086-0087]).
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 (Beck, Figs. 5, 10b, tracking results are used to determine an operation status, such as projected path and alignment with target, associated with performing an operation associated with the object/instrument, [0073-0074, 0086-0087]).
Regarding claims 20, 25, 30, 32 the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 1, 8, is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claims 20, 25 and the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claims 30, 32 (Beck, machine-readable media, [0115]) corresponds to the system of claims 1, 8, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the method of claim 20, 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 (Beck, Figs. 2-3, generate a measurement difference by comparing the measurement of the object/instrument (the length of “the still visible portion”) with a reference measurement (the known, registered length of the instrument), the reference measurement being of the object before the object moves across the body wall (having been registered prior to insertion into the container/body), [0050, 0066-0071]); wherein generating the tracking result comprises using the measurement difference (Beck, Fig. 3, generate and display the tracking result using the measurement difference via extrapolation, [0050, 0066-0071]).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claims 1, 20 above, further in view of Krimsky (US 20200046433 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Beck and Nawana fails to teach where Krimsky teaches 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 (Krimsky, Figs. 3a-b, 5, determine that object includes a tool for performing an operation in the body (if it is an EWC (extended working channel, which does not itself perform operation, wherein the tool is inserted, but is itself inserted and removed), LG (local guide, which is inserted into the EWC and does perform an operation, being inserted and removed), or tool (which is inserted and removed)), and determine tool tracking configuration/best steps according to that determination, [0046, 0054, 0068-0072, 0076]); the 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 (Krimsky, Fig. 3a-b, configuration includes a tool tracking step to track the insertion and removal of the tools in the body (e.g. the tool may be removed and LG may be reinserted for re-positioning, shown in tracking; and/or LG may be removed and tool may be inserted in order to perform treatment, shown in tracking), [0054, 0068-0072, 0076]); the processing unit is configured to track the object by performing at least the tool tracking step (Krimsky, Fig. 3a-3b, object’s movement is tracked, including insertion or removal from the body, [0054, 0068-0072, 0076]); and the processing unit is configured to generate the tracking result based on the tool tracking configuration (Krimsky, tracking result is generated and displayed based on the tool tracking configuration, [0068-0072, 0076]).
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 Krimsky to include Krimsky’s tool tracking configuration of tools entering and exiting the body to Beck’s, as modified by Nawana, tool tracking. Doing so would improve tool tracking by providing guidelines for tracking and operation, including insertion and removal steps, which would be used to more efficiently track and operate the tool.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 1.
However, the combination of Beck and Nawana fails to teach where Krimsky teaches 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 (Krimsky, Figs. 3a-b, 5, determine that object includes a tool for performing an operation in the body (if it is an EWC (extended working channel, which does not itself perform operation, wherein the tool is inserted, but is itself inserted and removed), LG (local guide, which is inserted into the EWC and does perform an operation, being inserted and removed), or tool (which is inserted and removed)), and determine tool tracking configuration/best steps according to that determination, [0046, 0054, 0068-0072, 0076]), 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 (Krimsky, configuration includes steps regarding a first step for tracking insertion into the body, and a second step for tracking removal from the body, [0054, 0068-0072, 0076]); the processing unit is configured to track the object by performing at least the first and second tool tracking steps (Krimsky, object is tracked by performing insertion and removal tracking, [0054, 0068-0072, 0076]); and the processing unit is configured to generate the tracking result based on the tool tracking configuration (Krimsky, tracking result is generated and displayed based on the tool tracking configuration, [0068-0072, 0076]); wherein the status indicates a motion status of the tool moving out of the body after the operation (Krimsky, status of tool’s movement as it moves out of the body/is being removed after its use/operation is indicated via the tracking result and display, [0068-0072, 0076]).
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 Krimsky to include Krimsky’s tool tracking configuration of tools entering and exiting the body, including their motion status, to Beck’s, as modified by Nawana, tool tracking. Doing so would improve tool tracking by providing guidelines for tracking and operation, including insertion and removal steps and motion status, which would be used to more efficiently track and operate the tool.
Regarding claim 22, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 22 corresponds to the system of claim 3, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Gupta (US 20180308247 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Beck and Nawana teaches the system of claim 8.
However, the combination of Beck and Nawana fails to teach where Gupta teaches 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 (Gupta, Figs. 15b, 16a, 18c, if body portion (tissue of interest) includes a plurality of sub-portions (plurality of biopsies, which are sub-portions of the tissue of interest), the volume/measurement of the tissue is determined based on the aggregation of the individual volumes of sub-portions/biopsy samples removed, to see if the correct amount was extracted, [0050, 0056, 0064, 0093-0098]); 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 (Gupta, Figs. 15b, 16a, 18c, generate a measurement difference (difference volume) by comparing the measurement of the object/tissue with a reference measurement, the reference measurement being of the tissue before removal and being imaged beforehand to identify the desired areas of removal, [0050, 0056, 0064, 0093-0098]), 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 (Gupta, Fig. 15b, 16a, 18, generate and display the tracking result by generating a confirmation [the displayed breakdown of the difference volume measurements] indicating whether an entirety of the object has been removed/moved across the body wall based on the percentages and measurements, [0050, 0056, 0064, 0093-0098]) or whether an integrity of the object has moved across the body wall.
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 Gupta to include Gupta’s sub-portion measurement aggregation and comparison for object tracking to Beck’s, as modified by Nawana, measurements for object tracking. Doing so would improve object tracking by providing aggregation and comparison of object and sub-object measurements, which would be used to double check that the object and sub-objects that were desired to be removed were removed in their entirety.
Claim(s) 15, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claims 1, 20 above, 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.
Claim(s) 17, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claims 1, 30 above, 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.
Claim(s) 27, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Nawana, as applied to claims 1, 30 above. Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 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 an inventor having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable.
Regarding claim 27, Beck teaches the method of claim 20, 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 (Beck, Figs. 2-3, generate a measurement difference by comparing the measurement of the object/instrument (the length of “the still visible portion”) with a reference measurement (the known, registered length of the instrument), the reference measurement being of the object before the object moves across the body wall (having been registered prior to insertion into the container/body), [0050, 0066-0071]); wherein generating the tracking result comprises using the measurement difference (Beck, Fig. 3, generate and display the tracking result using the measurement difference via extrapolation, [0050, 0066-0071]).
Although different embodiments of Beck have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beck by combining Beck’s similar embodiments, and more particularly by including the comparison of the object’s measurement with a reference measurement for tracking, to Beck’s measurements for tracking, in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see Beck, [0024-0026]).
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEELY G YEARGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/KEELY GWYNNE YEARGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights