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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 11, 14-17, 19, and 21-27 are pending.
All claims are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Applicant’s responses filed 08/20/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that Mihailescu, et al. US 20190336004 A1 teaches a first model comprising a prior surface model of the subject ([0015] discloses that the memory can have instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to construct a three-dimensional (3-D) model of a tissue with respect to the object using the saved spatially registered scan and another spatially registered scan), and a second model comprising a surface model of the object, and an optical model of the stationary or movable camera unit ([0104] states that Additionally, a similar computer vision camera system can be mounted on other sensors and instruments that can be used simultaneously with probe 301. The spatial tracking data from all these elements can be combined to create a common spatial model comprising instruments and investigated fields).
Mihailescu, however, fails to teach the recited third model comprising the optical model of the camera, for which newly found prior art Seeley, et al., US 20030130576 A1 has been introduced.
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 14-15, 19, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu, et al. US 20190336004 A1 in view of Seeley, et al., US 20030130576 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Mihailescu teaches a system for determining a pose of an object relative to a subject with a skin or skin-like surface ([0010] states “An ultrasound transducer sharing a housing with a machine-vision camera system is disclosed. The integrated camera views an object, such as a patient's body, and determines the ultrasound transducer's x, y, z position in space and pitch, yaw, and roll orientation with respect to the object”), the system comprising:
a camera not attached to the object and arranged to view the object and a surface of the subject ([0226] states “the at least one camera or ranging system can be part of a head-mounted tracking and visualization (HMTV) system”);
a guide configured to guide an operator to move the object to a desired pose relative to the subject (in fig. 15, a graphical user interface provides a guide for an operator regarding the positions and orientations of the probe. [0213] states that “The window 1504 comprising the 3-D model of the patient can also comprise any of the elements described for window 1506, as well as 2-D ultrasound scans. The purpose of this window can be to guide the local clinician on the best position and orientation of the probe in respect the patient 1507. The best position and orientation of the probe is suggested either by the local analysis results, as indicated by a computer system, or as recommended by a remote user”); and
a computing device (computing unit 104 of [0079]) in communication with the camera ([0079] discloses synchronization with the probe and camera), the computing device storing a first model comprising a three-dimensional (3D) surface model of the subject ([0015] discloses that the memory can have instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to construct a three-dimensional (3-D) model of a tissue with respect to the object using the saved spatially registered scan and another spatially registered scan), a second model comprising a 3D surface model of the object ([0104] states that Additionally, a similar computer vision camera system can be mounted on other sensors and instruments that can be used simultaneously with probe 301. The spatial tracking data from all these elements can be combined to create a common spatial model comprising instruments and investigated fields)
wherein the first model, second model, and third model are separate models ([0126] states that an estimate of the 3D position and orientation of the camera is obtained by tracking features and highlights associated with various objects in the field of view in subsequent image frames. By triangulation, the distance to these highlights can be calculated, and from that, the spatial registration of the sensor in respect to these highlights is determined. At the same time, the 3D model of the whole scene can be built. The surgical scene comprises the patient, various instruments and sensors, and hence separate 3D models are created for each of the items in the surgical scene),
and the computing device (computing unit 104 of [0079]) configured to:
determine 3D camera pose relative to the 3D surface model of the subject for which the image of the subject captured by the camera matches the 3D surface model of the subject projected through the optical model of the camera ([0102] states “Another advantage of a stereoscopic system, in particular, is that for the 3D modeler analysis step described below (in step 604 of FIG. 6), to be implemented on computer 305, the scale of the investigated scene will be apparent from matching the frames taken simultaneously from the multiple cameras, whose relative positions and orientations can be known with high precision. Also, in this arrangement no movement of the system is necessary to construct the 3D model of the investigated object”); and
determine 3D object pose relative to the subject for which an image of the object matches the 3D surface model of the object projected through the optical model of the camera ([0213] states that “The best position and orientation of the probe is suggested either by the local analysis results, as indicated by a computer system, or as recommended by a remote user”, with further clarifications from [0214], stating that “the 3-D model ultrasound probe 1508, is shown positioned in respect to the 3-D model of the patient 1507, as obtained by the tracking system”).
Mihailescu does not teach a third model comprising an optical model of the camera, the optical model comprising camera parameters for the camera, the optical model configured to project 3D features to an image of the subject.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Seeley teaches a method or system of the present invention wherein an x-ray imaging machine of movable angulation, such as a fluoroscope, is operated to form reference or navigation images of a patient undergoing a procedure. A tracking system employs a tracking element affixed to each of the imaging machine and tool, and preferably to the patient as well, to provide respective position data for the tool, the fluoroscope and patient, while a fixed volume array of markers, which is also tracked, is imaged in each frame according to [0016]. [0054] discloses a camera calibration step to create a camera model (optical model as recited) ,the model comprising camera parameters such as focal length, optical center and radial distortions. Also, see [0057] for the camera calibration matrix. [0067] then states that “It will be recalled that the camera calibration described above models the camera for each shot. Each configuration of the C-arm defines a coordinate system in which the origin, (0,0,0) is defined by the location of the x-ray source…If all the fluoroscope configurations are taken in the context of a common world-coordinate system, each of these configurations defines a unique optical axis. Ideally, the point in three-space where all these optical axes intersect would be visible and centered in all the projection images. Based on the assumption that the fluoroscopic images are acquired by approximately centering the region of interest, applicant defines a projection center of the imaged tissue volume from the ensemble of camera models, and uses this intersection point as the origin for a three-dimensional reconstruction”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu with a third model comprising an optical model of the camera, the optical model comprising camera parameters for the camera, the optical model configured to project 3D features to an image of the subject, as taught by Seeley, to reduce distortions in the images for tracking the features of interest within the surgical scene ([0010]-[0011]) and provide accurate data regarding the positions of objects within the surgical scene ([0012]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the camera is arranged in a smartphone or tablet ([0026]-[0027] discloses that the portable computing device is smart phone with camera).
Regarding claim 3, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the object is at least one of the following: a surgical tool, an ultrasound probe, a clinician's hand or finger, or any combination thereof ([0214] discloses that the object is an ultrasound probe of which a model is generated).
Regarding claim 4, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein at least one of the 3D surface models of the subject and the 3D surface models of the object is derived from a set of images from a multi-camera system ([0081] and [0083] disclose two or more cameras for capturing the data that is processed to form the 3D models).
Regarding claim 5, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein at least one of the 3D surface models of the subject and the 3D surface models of the object is derived from a temporal sequence of camera images ([0107] indicates that “The data stream (or video stream) coming from the light sensing device (or camera) is analyzed to identify the fiducial object in the field of view. By analyzing the apparent form of the fiducial object, the position and orientation of the probe in respect to the fiducial object is obtained, and from that, the position and orientation of the probe in respect to the investigated object”).
Regarding claim 6, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the optical model of the camera is derived from a calibration of the camera prior to a run-time operation of the system ([0114] states that “an image rectification 601 analysis step may be used to correct the position of the pixels in the frame using a pre-measured calibration matrix”).
Regarding claim 7, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the optical model of the camera is derived during a run-time operation of the system ([0126] indicates “an estimate of the 3D position and orientation of the camera is obtained by tracking features and highlights associated with various objects in the field of view in subsequent image frames”).
Regarding claim 8, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches an inertial navigation system incorporated into the object and configured to; output data associated with at least one of the 3D object pose and the 3D camera object pose ([0016] states that “An inertial measurement unit (IMU) can be supported by the housing, in which the memory includes instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to determine the spatial position and orientation of the ultrasound transducer with respect to the object using output from the IMU”).
Regarding claim 14, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the guide is configured to guide the operator based on a real-time determination of a present object pose ([0216] states “The patient contour as measured by the ranging or light sensing system can be matched to the outline of a generic human model. This will allow the computer guidance system to give precise instructions about the positioning and movement of the ultrasound probe in respect to the real patient model. Ultrasound anatomical landmarks observed in real-time can be matched in 3-D to landmarks in the 3-D models for a much more precise registration that will correct for organ movements and displacements due to variations in body habitus and position”).
Regarding claim 15, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the guide identifies to the operator when a desired pose has been accomplished ([0213] states “The best position and orientation of the probe is suggested either by the local analysis results, as indicated by a computer system, or as recommended by a remote user”).
Regarding claim 19, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the guide is displayed on a graphical display comprises a rendering of the object in the desired pose relative to the subject (see fig. 15 and [0214]).
Regarding claim 21, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the object is a virtual object comprising a single target point on the surface of the subject ([0214] discloses that the “The recommended position of the probe is represented by the graphical guiding element 1509”).
Regarding claim 23, Mihailescu teaches a method for determining a pose of an object relative to a subject (abstract describes methods for determining the position and orientation of sensor probe), comprising:
capturing, with at least one computing device, a sequence of images with a stationary or movable camera unit arranged in a room([0014] states “a camera having a portion enclosed by the housing assembly and rigidly connected with the ultrasound transducer, and at least one processor operatively coupled with a memory and the camera, the memory having instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to determine a spatial position and orientation of the ultrasound transducer with respect to an object using an image captured by the camera”), the sequence of images comprising the subject and an object moving relative to the subject ([0107] indicates that “The data stream (or video stream) coming from the light sensing device (or camera) is analyzed to identify the fiducial object in the field of view. By analyzing the apparent form of the fiducial object, the position and orientation of the probe in respect to the fiducial object is obtained, and from that, the position and orientation of the probe in respect to the investigated object”); and
determining, with at least one computing device, the pose of the object with respect to the subject in at least one image of the sequence of images based on computing or using a first model comprising a prior surface model of the subject ([0015] discloses that the memory can have instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to construct a three-dimensional (3-D) model of a tissue with respect to the object using the saved spatially registered scan and another spatially registered scan), a second model comprising a surface model of the object, and an optical model of the stationary or movable camera unit ([0104] states that Additionally, a similar computer vision camera system can be mounted on other sensors and instruments that can be used simultaneously with probe 301. The spatial tracking data from all these elements can be combined to create a common spatial model comprising instruments and investigated fields);
wherein the first model, second model, and third model are separate models ([0126] states that an estimate of the 3D position and orientation of the camera is obtained by tracking features and highlights associated with various objects in the field of view in subsequent image frames. By triangulation, the distance to these highlights can be calculated, and from that, the spatial registration of the sensor in respect to these highlights is determined. At the same time, the 3D model of the whole scene can be built. The surgical scene comprises the patient, various instruments and sensors, and hence separate 3D models are created for each of the items in the surgical scene), and
a guiding, with a guide and at least one computing device, an operator to move the object to move the object to a desired pose relative to the subject (in fig. 15, a graphical user interface provides a guide for an operator regarding the positions and orientations of the probe. [0213] states that “The window 1504 comprising the 3-D model of the patient can also comprise any of the elements described for window 1506, as well as 2-D ultrasound scans. The purpose of this window can be to guide the local clinician on the best position and orientation of the probe in respect the patient 1507. The best position and orientation of the probe is suggested either by the local analysis results, as indicated by a computer system, or as recommended by a remote user”).
Mihailescu does not teach a third model comprising an optical model of the camera, the optical model comprising camera parameters for the camera, the optical model configured to project 3D features to an image of the subject.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Seeley teaches a method or system of the present invention wherein an x-ray imaging machine of movable angulation, such as a fluoroscope, is operated to form reference or navigation images of a patient undergoing a procedure. A tracking system employs a tracking element affixed to each of the imaging machine and tool, and preferably to the patient as well, to provide respective position data for the tool, the fluoroscope and patient, while a fixed volume array of markers, which is also tracked, is imaged in each frame according to [0016]. [0054] discloses a camera calibration step to create a camera model (optical model as recited) ,the model comprising camera parameters such as focal length, optical center and radial distortions. Also, see [0057] for the camera calibration matrix. [0067] then states that “It will be recalled that the camera calibration described above models the camera for each shot. Each configuration of the C-arm defines a coordinate system in which the origin, (0,0,0) is defined by the location of the x-ray source…If all the fluoroscope configurations are taken in the context of a common world-coordinate system, each of these configurations defines a unique optical axis. Ideally, the point in three-space where all these optical axes intersect would be visible and centered in all the projection images. Based on the assumption that the fluoroscopic images are acquired by approximately centering the region of interest, applicant defines a projection center of the imaged tissue volume from the ensemble of camera models, and uses this intersection point as the origin for a three-dimensional reconstruction”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu with a third model comprising an optical model of the camera, the optical model comprising camera parameters for the camera, the optical model configured to project 3D features to an image of the subject, as taught by Seeley, to reduce distortions in the images for tracking the features of interest within the surgical scene ([0010]-[0011]) and provide accurate data regarding the positions of objects within the surgical scene ([0012]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 24, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein the at least one computing device and the stationary or movable camera unit are arranged in a mobile device ([0026]-[0027] disclose a smart phone with camera).
Regarding claim 26, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 24 above.
Mihailescu further teaches wherein determining the pose of the object comprises: generating a projection of the surface model of the subject through the optical model of the stationary or movable camera unit; and matching at least one image to the projection ([0213] states that “The best position and orientation of the probe is suggested either by the local analysis results, as indicated by a computer system, or as recommended by a remote user”, with further clarifications from [0214], stating that “the 3-D model ultrasound probe 1508, is shown positioned in respect to the 3-D model of the patient 1507, as obtained by the tracking system”).
Regarding claim 27, Mihailescu teaches a system for determining a pose of an object relative to a subject (see abstract), comprising:
a camera unit ([0226] states “the at least one camera or ranging system can be part of a head-mounted tracking and visualization (HMTV) system”);
a data storage device configured to store a surface model of a subject, a surface model of an object, and an optical model of the camera unit (storage device 1314 of [0197] and [0199]);
a guide configured to guide an operator to move the object to a desired pose relative to the subject (in fig. 15, a graphical user interface provides a guide for an operator regarding the positions and orientations of the probe. [0213] states that “The window 1504 comprising the 3-D model of the patient can also comprise any of the elements described for window 1506, as well as 2-D ultrasound scans. The purpose of this window can be to guide the local clinician on the best position and orientation of the probe in respect the patient 1507. The best position and orientation of the probe is suggested either by the local analysis results, as indicated by a computer system, or as recommended by a remote user”); and
at least one computing device (processor of [0014]) programmed or configured to:
capture a sequence of images with the camera unit while the camera unit is stationary and arranged in a room ([0014] states “a camera having a portion enclosed by the housing assembly and rigidly connected with the ultrasound transducer, and at least one processor operatively coupled with a memory and the camera, the memory having instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to determine a spatial position and orientation of the ultrasound transducer with respect to an object using an image captured by the camera”), the sequence of images comprising the subject and the object moving relative to the subject ([0107] indicates that “The data stream (or video stream) coming from the light sensing device (or camera) is analyzed to identify the fiducial object in the field of view. By analyzing the apparent form of the fiducial object, the position and orientation of the probe in respect to the fiducial object is obtained, and from that, the position and orientation of the probe in respect to the investigated object”. This is performed using the HMTV system); and
determine the pose of the object with respect to the subject in at least one image of the sequence of images based on a first model comprising a surface model of the subject ([0015] discloses that the memory can have instructions for execution by the at least one processor configured to construct a three-dimensional (3-D) model of a tissue with respect to the object using the saved spatially registered scan and another spatially registered scan), a second model comprising a surface model of the object ([0104] states that Additionally, a similar computer vision camera system can be mounted on other sensors and instruments that can be used simultaneously with probe 301. The spatial tracking data from all these elements can be combined to create a common spatial model comprising instruments and investigated fields),
wherein the first model, second model, and third model are separate models ([0126] states that an estimate of the 3D position and orientation of the camera is obtained by tracking features and highlights associated with various objects in the field of view in subsequent image frames. By triangulation, the distance to these highlights can be calculated, and from that, the spatial registration of the sensor in respect to these highlights is determined. At the same time, the 3D model of the whole scene can be built. The surgical scene comprises the patient, various instruments and sensors, and hence separate 3D models are created for each of the items in the surgical scene)
Mihailescu does not teach a third model comprising an optical model of the camera, the optical model comprising camera parameters for the camera, the optical model configured to project 3D features to an image of the subject.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Seeley teaches a method or system of the present invention wherein an x-ray imaging machine of movable angulation, such as a fluoroscope, is operated to form reference or navigation images of a patient undergoing a procedure. A tracking system employs a tracking element affixed to each of the imaging machine and tool, and preferably to the patient as well, to provide respective position data for the tool, the fluoroscope and patient, while a fixed volume array of markers, which is also tracked, is imaged in each frame according to [0016]. [0054] discloses a camera calibration step to create a camera model (optical model as recited) ,the model comprising camera parameters such as focal length, optical center and radial distortions. Also, see [0057] for the camera calibration matrix. [0067] then states that “It will be recalled that the camera calibration described above models the camera for each shot. Each configuration of the C-arm defines a coordinate system in which the origin, (0,0,0) is defined by the location of the x-ray source…If all the fluoroscope configurations are taken in the context of a common world-coordinate system, each of these configurations defines a unique optical axis. Ideally, the point in three-space where all these optical axes intersect would be visible and centered in all the projection images. Based on the assumption that the fluoroscopic images are acquired by approximately centering the region of interest, applicant defines a projection center of the imaged tissue volume from the ensemble of camera models, and uses this intersection point as the origin for a three-dimensional reconstruction”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu with a third model comprising an optical model of the camera, the optical model comprising camera parameters for the camera, the optical model configured to project 3D features to an image of the subject, as taught by Seeley, to reduce distortions in the images for tracking the features of interest within the surgical scene ([0010]-[0011]) and provide accurate data regarding the positions of objects within the surgical scene ([0012]-[0015]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Seeley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Usami, et al., US 20210258710 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 03/26/2024).
Regarding claim 11, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu in view of Seeley fails to teach wherein determining at least one of the 3D camera object pose and the 3D object pose (as indicated above in the rejection of claim 1) is based on an inverse rendering of at least one of the 3D surface model of the subject and the 3D surface model of the object.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Usami teaches a captured image obtaining unit 50 of an output control device 10 obtains a captured image such as a polarization image from an imaging device 12. A space information obtaining unit 54 obtains a normal line and a position of a surface of an actual object in a space and a sound absorption coefficient at the surface (abstract), [0066] stating that “the sound absorption coefficient obtaining unit 68 may identify the material by solving an inverse problem of a rendering equation that is typically used in computer graphics drawing”. [0067]-[0070] describe the use of inverse rendering a surface of an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu as modified by Seeley, wherein determining at least one of the 3D camera object pose and the 3D object pose (as indicated above in the rejection of claim 1) is based on an inverse rendering of at least one of the 3D surface model of the subject and the 3D surface model of the object, as taught by Usami, providing an accurate method of precisely determining the positions and postures of objects ([0101]-[0102]).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Seeley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weide, et al., JP 2018538015 A (disclosed in IDS filed 03/26/2024).
Regarding claim 16, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu in view of Seeley fails to teach lights attached to the object, wherein the operator is guided to move the object by selective activation of the lights.
However, Weide discloses lights attached to the object, wherein the operator is guided to move the object by selective activation of the lights (the guide is a series of lights where a surgeon keeps the light in the center of an X of the continuous light (guided to move); page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Mihailescu as modified by Seeley to include discloses lights attached to the object, wherein the operator is guided to move the object by selective activation of the lights, as taught by Weide, for the benefit of training the physician or guiding the physician to perform a virtual procedure (Weide; page 2).
Regarding claim 17, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu in view of Seeley fails to teach wherein the guide is configured to guide the operator based on at least one of audio cues and tactile cues.
However, Weide further discloses wherein the guide is configured to guide the operator based on audio cues (audio feedback is used to guide the physician; page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Mihailescu as modified by Seeley wherein the guide is configured to guide the operator based on audio cues, as taught by Weide, for the benefit of training the physician or guiding the physician to perform a virtual procedure (Weide; page 2).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Seeley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwano, et al., US 6487431 B1 (disclosed in IDS filed 03/26/2024).
Regarding claim 22, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mihailescu in view of Seeley fails to teach wherein the object is a virtual object comprising a one-dimensional line intersecting the surface of the subject at a single target point in a particular direction relative to the surface.
However, Iwano discloses a radiographic apparatus which allows a biopsy needle or a drug injection needle to be run into a patient accurately and quickly (abstract) wherein the object is a virtual object comprising a one-dimensional line intersecting the surface of the subject at a single target point in a particular direction relative to the surface (fig. 9, col. 7, lines 49-col. 8, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Seeley wherein the object is a virtual object comprising a one-dimensional line intersecting the surface of the subject at a single target point in a particular direction relative to the surface, as taught by Iwano, for guiding an operator accurately and quickly (col. 7, lines 58-62).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailescu in view of Seeley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bickel, et al., US 20120185218 A1.
Regarding claim 25, Mihailescu in view of Seeley teaches all the limitations of claim 23 above.
Mihailescu in view of Seeley fails to teach wherein determining the pose of the object includes determining a skin deformation of the subject.
However, Bickel teaches a computer-implemented method is provided for physical face cloning to generate a synthetic skin. Rather than attempt to reproduce the mechanical properties of biological tissue, an output-oriented approach is utilized that models the synthetic skin as an elastic material with isotropic and homogeneous properties (e.g., silicone rubber). The method includes capturing a plurality of expressive poses from a human subject and generating a computational model based on one or more material parameters of a material (see abstract). [0075] states that “the optimization process may be utilized to modify a local thickness of the synthetic skin geometry in such a way that when mechanical actuators of the animatronic device are set to values corresponding to a particular expressive pose, the resulting deformation of the skin matches the expressive poses' target positions q as closely as possible. In a physical simulation, the actuators settings result in hard positional constraints that can be directly be applied to the corresponding deformed positions.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Mihailescu, as modified by Seeley, wherein determining the pose of the object includes determining a skin deformation of the subject, as taught by Bickel, as such modification would provide an accurate prediction of the deformed shape ([0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights