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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 23, and 37 have been amended. Claims 1-3,5,8,10-12,14-15,17,21,23-24,27,31-33 and 37-39 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31-33, and 37-39 have been 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.
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.
Claims 1 - 2, 5, 8, 12, 23 - 24, 31 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0202629 A1, hereinafter Sharma) in view of Charles et al. (US Pub No: US 2021/0186624 A1 A1, hereinafter Charles).
Regarding Claim 1:
Sharma discloses:
A computer-assisted device comprising: a repositionable structure configured to support an imaging device. Paragraph [0112] describes a camera that can be used to detect the motion or orientation of the HMD device.
and a control unit communicably coupled to the repositionable structure. Paragraph [0056] describes a communication interface 170 to set up communication between the electronic device 101 and an external electronic device.
wherein the control unit is configured to: receive head motion signals indicative of a change in position of a head of an operator relative to a reference. Paragraph [0121] and figure 6 describes a HMD device that uses head motions to be received as inputs to the HMD to control operation of the HMD.
Charles, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
in response to determining that the head motion signals indicate that~
displacement amount of head motion associated with the change in position of the head of the operator does not exceed a maximum threshold amount of head motion in a direction, cause an orientation of a field of view (FOV) of the imaging device to be adjusted in accordance with a commanded motion by commanding movement of at least one of the repositionable structure or the imaging device, wherein the commanded motion is determined based on the change in position. (¶ 13—“motion thresholding system that determines if the detected movement of the at least one marker corresponds to a deliberate head movement of the surgeon”; ¶ 54—“a deliberate head movement may be a head movement that is in the range of from about 1 mm to about 16 mm, as measured by movement of a particular point on the surgeon's head through three-dimensional space”; ¶ 9—“a head movement that is not the defined head movement may be ignored by the head tracking control system”; ¶ 6—“If the detected movement of the at least one marker corresponds to the defined head movement of the surgeon, the processor executes instructions to control the ophthalmic surgical microscope.”; ¶ 57—“processor 280 may execute instructions to move motorized microscope head support 265 in response to the defined head movement”)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Sharma to incorporate the teachings of Charles to show determining that the head motion signals indicate that the change in position does not exceed a threshold amount in a direction, cause an orientation of the field of view to be adjusted. One would have been motivated to do so to improve visualization for ophthalmic surgery and associated methods. ([0001] of Charles).
Claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 37:
Sharma discloses:
One or more non-transitory machine-readable media comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions which when executed by one or more processors are adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising. Paragraph [0047] describes a processor 120 and a memory 130.
The rest of claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.’
Regarding Claim 2:
Sharma discloses:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the commanded motion by: determining a first angle associated with the change in position in a left-right direction relative to the reference; determining, based on the first angle, a second angle by which to adjust the FOV of the imaging device in a yaw direction relative to a FOV reference pose; and determining the commanded motion based on the second angle. Paragraph [0128] and figure 11 describes a head that can rotate up and down and left to right.
Claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 5:
Sharma discloses:
The computer-assisted device of claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the commanded motion by: determining a third angle associated with the change in position in an up- down direction relative to the reference; determining, based on the third angle, a fourth angle by which to adjust the FOV of the imaging device in a pitch direction relative to the FOV reference pose; and determining the commanded motion further based on the fourth angle. Paragraph [0128] and figure 11 describes a head that can rotate up and down and left to right.
Regarding Claim 8:
Sharma discloses:
The computer-assisted device of claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the commanded motion by: determining a fifth angle by which to roll the FOV of the imaging device based on the change in position in the left-right direction relative to the reference; and determining the commanded motion further based on the fifth angle. Paragraph [0128] and figure 11 describes a head that can rotate up and down and left to right.
Regarding Claim 12:
Charles teaches:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the threshold amount comprises a threshold angle. Paragraph [034] describes a pitch, yaw, and roll head movement which can each correspond to an angular movement with a motion thresholding system disclosed in paragraph [0052].
The reason to combine Charles with Sharma is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claim 31 is substantially similar to claim 12 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 10, 14 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Charles and further in view of Itkowitz et al. (US Pub No: 2018/0092700 A1, hereinafter Itkowitz).
Regarding Claim 10:
Sharma and Charles teach the above limitations in claim 1. Sharma and Charles do not teach determining an articulation of the joint that would align a direction of the FOV of the imaging device with a direction of view of the head of the operator.
Itkowitz, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The computer-assisted device of claim 2, wherein the imaging device comprises a shaft and a joint disposed at a distal portion of the shaft, and wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the commanded motion by: determining an articulation of the joint that would align a direction of the FOV of the imaging device with a direction of view of the head of the operator after the change in position; and determining the commanded motion further based on the articulation. Paragraph [0051] describes a shaft 232 and a joint region 234 between the shaft and end effector tip. The badge 218 is relocated to a distal end of the shaft 242 of the instrument 26c. The shift distance can correspond to a calibrated kinematic model of the instrument based on manipulator joint positions, kinematic sensors and size of components in the kinematic chain.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Sharma and Charles to incorporate the teachings of Itkowitz to show determining an articulation of the joint that would align a direction of the FOV of the imaging device with a direction of view of the head of the operator. One would have been motivated to do so to provide the position and orientation of the joint region 234 ([0051] of Itkowitz).
Regarding Claim 14:
Itkowitz teaches:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the commanded motion by: determining an adjustment to the FOV of the imaging device that would align a direction of the FOV of the imaging device with a direction of view of the head of the operator after the change in position; and determining the commanded motion further based on the adjustment to the FOV of the imaging device. Paragraph [0051] describes a shaft 232 and a joint region 234 between the shaft and end effector tip. The badge 218 is relocated to a distal end of the shaft 242 of the instrument 26c. The shift distance can correspond to a calibrated kinematic model of the instrument based on manipulator joint positions, kinematic sensors and size of components in the kinematic chain.
Claim 32 is substantially similar to claim 14 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 11, 15, 17, 27, 33 and 38 – 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Charles and further in view of Richardson et al. (US Pub No: 2008/0129688 A1, hereinafter Richardson).
Regarding Claim 17:
Sharma and Charles teach the above limitations in claim 1. Sharma and Charles do not teach that head motion signals indicate that the change in position exceeds a threshold amount in a direction for a threshold period of time, reset the reference position based on a current position of the head.
Richardson, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to: in response to determining that the head motion signals indicate that the change in position exceeds the threshold amount in the direction for at least a threshold period of time, reset the reference based on a current position of the head. Paragraph [0031] describes resetting the calibration of the control produced by the position and/or positional changes of the sensed object. For example, it may be desirable to allow the user to set or adjust the neutral center position of the frame of reference.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Sharma and Charles to incorporate the teachings of Richardson to show that head motion signals indicate that the change in position exceeds a threshold amount in a direction for a threshold period of time, reset the reference position based on a current position of the head. One would have been motivated to do so that the reference position can be adjustable based on the needs of the system or user ([0032] of Richardson).
Claims 33 and 39 are substantially similar to claim 17 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 11:
Sharma and Richardson teach:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the commanded motion by: determining a first displacement of the head, the first displacement associated with the change in position in a left-right direction relative to the reference; determining, based on the first displacement, a second displacement by which to adjust the FOV of the imaging device in a yaw direction relative to a FOV reference pose; and determining the commanded motion based on the second displacement. Paragraph [0128] and figure 11 of Sharma describes a head that can rotate up and down and left to right. Paragraph [0031] of Richardson describes resetting the calibration of the control produced by the position and/or positional changes of the sensed object. For example, it may be desirable to allow the user to set or adjust the neutral center position of the frame of reference.
The reason to combine Richardson with Sharma is for the same reason as in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 15:
Richardson teaches:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to: in response to determining that the head motion signals indicate that the change in position exceeds the threshold amount in the direction, command the at least one of the repositionable structure or the imaging device to adjust the FOV of the imaging device in accordance with a commanded movement associated with a maximum adjustment of the FOV of the imaging device in the direction. Paragraph [0031] describes resetting the calibration of the control produced by the position and/or positional changes of the sensed object. For example, it may be desirable to allow the user to set or adjust the neutral center position of the frame of reference.
The reason to combine Richardson with Sharma is for the same reason as in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 27:
Sharma and Richardson teach:
The method of claim 24, further comprising determining the commanded motion further based on a fourth angle, or a fifth angle, or a second displacement, wherein: the fourth angle is determined based on a third angle associated with the change in position in an up-down direction relative to the reference; the fourth angle is used to adjust the FOV of the imaging device in a pitch direction relative to the FOV reference pose; the fifth angle is determined based on the change in position in the left-right direction relative to the reference, and the fifth angle is used to determine a roll the FOV of the imaging device; or the second displacement is determined based on a first displacement of the head associated with the change in position in the left-right direction relative to the reference, and the second displacement is used to adjust the FOV of the imaging device in the yaw direction relative to the FOV reference pose. Paragraph [0031] of Richardson describes resetting the calibration of the control produced by the position and/or positional changes of the sensed object. For example, it may be desirable to allow the user to set or adjust the neutral center position of the frame of reference. Paragraph [0128] and figure 11 of Sharma describes a head that can rotate up and down and left to right.
The reason to combine Richardson with Sharma is for the same reason as in claim 17.
Claim 38 is substantially similar to claim 27 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma in view of Charles and further in view of Vziri (US Pub No: 2017/0330042 A1, hereinafter Vaziri).
Regarding Claim 21:
Sharma and Charles teach the above limitations in claim 1. Sharma and Charles do not teach control signals from hand-operated device.
Vaziri, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the commanded motion is further determined based on control signals from at least one of a hand-operated or a foot- operated input device. Paragraph [0062] describes using eye or hand gestures to communicate with a device to perform an action.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Sharma to incorporate the teachings of Vaziri to show control signals from hand-operated device. One would have been motivated to do so to provide additional ways for a user to trigger an action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagi (US Pub No: 2022/0018098 A1): A calibration work support system includes an input device for inputting machine information including machine rank data on a hydraulic excavator and specification data on a front work implement, a display controller that generates a target posture image that is an image of the case in which the front work implement that takes target measurement posture is viewed with a point-of-view position and a line-of-sight direction of an operator M on the basis of the machine information input from the input device and target posture data defined in advance as the target measurement posture of the front work implement when an inertial measurement device is calibrated, and an HMD that displays the target posture image generated in the display controller. The HMD executes displaying in such a manner that the target posture image is superimposed on the actual front work implement viewed with the point-of-view position and the line-of-sight direction of the operator M.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights