DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, & 7-23 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “and/or” should instead recite “and” or “or”
Claim 10 appears to be written in an independent claim form; however, it also refers back to independent claim 1. If the applicant intends to have the claim interpreted as independent claim, all the limitations of claim 1 should be incorporated into claim 10 If the applicant rather intends to have the claim be a dependent claim then the dependency should be corrected like claims 2-9
Claim 12 recites “and/or” should instead recite “and” or “or”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, & 7-23 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determine at least one kinematic pattern of authorized relative
displacements of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data” which renders the claim unclear. As mentioned in the claim the authorized relative displacements are compared with real time kinematic measurements, it is thus unclear how per-operative data (real time data) can be used to both determine authorized relative displacements as well as be compared with authorized relative displacements.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determinining at least one kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data” which renders the claim unclear. As mentioned in the claim the authorized relative displacements are compared with real time kinematic measurements, it is thus unclear how per-operative data (real time data) can be used to both determine authorized relative displacements as well as be compared with authorized relative displacements.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chav (US20210128250A1) in view of Zuhars et al (US20210128252A1; hereinafter referred to as Zuhars) further in view of Berman et al (US20230042618A1; hereinafter referred to as Berman) and further in view of Bar-tal et al (US20110251814A1; hereinafter referred to as Bar-tal).
Regarding Claim 1, Chav discloses a system for determining that an electromagnetic disturbance is impairing measurements made by an electromagnetic tracking unit during a surgery, the system comprising (“computer-assisted surgery (CAS) system is generally shown at 10, and is used to perform orthopedic surgery maneuvers on a patient, including pre-operative analysis of range of motion and implant assessment planning, as described hereinafter.” [0033], “The EM tracking controller 50 may have an interference identifier module 53. The interference identifier module 53 may detect when interference and/or distortion occurs in the tracking set 40.” [0061]):
the electromagnetic tracking unit comprising at least two electromagnetic transducers, among which at least one electromagnetic transducer is configured to emit an electromagnetic field and at least one electromagnetic transducer is configured to receive and measure the emitted electromagnetic field, the at least two electromagnetic transducers being configured to be respectively attached to at least two bone portions linked to one another by at least one joint (“One or more mounts 31 may be provided on at least some of the tools 30, the robot arm 20, foot and/or thigh supports 51 and S2, for receiving the EM sensors 41 in a known and repeatable manner. Such mounts 31 may also be standalone units (i.e., not on a tool 30), with such mounts 31 being configured to be secured to bones A, organs and the like.” [0045], “Still referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the EM tracking set 40 includes one or more EM sensor(s) 41 and one or more EM source(s) 42, that are used for electromagnetic tracking. According to some embodiments, the EM tracking set 40 uses tuned AC electromagnetic technology for the tracking of the EM sensors 41 in position and orientation relative to a referential space, such as the X, Y, Z coordinate system.” [0046], “Each sensor 41 has coil(s) to detect a magnetic flux resulting from a electromagnetic field produced by the EM source(s) 42. In an embodiment, one or more of the EM sensors 41 has three non-parallel sensor coils that, when paired with a given EM source 42, may produce position and/or orientation tracking in a referential system including the EM source 42. The tracking may be for both position and orientation, i.e., six degrees of freedom, X, Y, Z in a coordinate system, and pitch, roll and yaw. Fewer or additional DOFs may be tracked. The EM sensors 41 may include different types of sensor components, such as solid-state sensors, quantum, or flux gage sensors. In an embodiment, the solid-state sensors implement giant magnetoresistance (GMR). The sensors 41 may also include superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometers and the like.” [0048])
the electromagnetic tracking unit being further configured to track relative poses of the at least two bone portions based on the emitted electromagnetic field which has been received and measured (“the tracking controller 50 continuously updates the position and/or orientation of the patient bones and tools in the coordinate system using the data from the tracking set 40. Moreover, once alterations are done, the tracking performed by the tracking controller 50 may be used to validate bone alterations, such as cut planes. In such a case, the surgical planning module 52 provides the planned alterations in the model of the bone.” [0062])
at least one storage unit and one data processor in communication with the storage unit and with the electromagnetic tracking unit (“Therefore, after such calibration and/or set-up steps, the surgical tracking module 52 may generate and/or track a 3D geometry of objects from the EM tracking, using registered landmark points on the bones or organs. For instance, the surgical tracking module 52 can generate a 3D model of a bone surface using points from the tracked registration pointer 30′ equipped with one of the EM sensors 41. In an embodiment, the surgical tracking module 52 may, using the virtual models C of the bone(s), match the 3D geometry with the virtual models C, with the objects detected being segmented. Consequently, the tracking controller 50 may determine a spatial relationship between an object being tracked and the preoperative 3D model of the object, to provide a dynamic (e.g. real time or quasi real time) intraoperative tracking of the bones relative to the tools. The tracking set 40 may continuously capture movements of the objects, for the tracking controller 50 to perform a continuous tracking of the objects.” [0060])
Chav does not specifically disclose to determine at least one kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data, the at least one kinematic pattern comprising a set of successive authorized poses of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another, and being recorded on the at least one storage unit, receive from the electromagnetic tracking unit the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and compute a real-time kinematic of the bone portions, the real-time kinematic of the bone portions comprising a geometry of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another at a given time, receive from the storage unit the recorded kinematic pattern, and compare the real-time kinematic of the bone portions with the recorded kinematic pattern, determine a difference between the real-time kinematic and the recorded kinematic pattern, determine that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, and replace the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements, so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches a process for confirming registration of bones involved in a joint replacement procedure is provided that includes a three dimensional (3-D) models of the bones being generated [Abstract].
Zuhars also teaches to determine at least one kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data, the at least one kinematic pattern comprising a set of successive authorized poses of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another, and being recorded on the at least one storage unit (“A process is provided to confirm the registration of bones involved in a joint replacement procedure. The process includes the use of pre-operative planning software to generate a 3-D model of the patient's bony anatomy from a computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image dataset of the patient. “ [0028], “collision detection may be implemented with a computer program or through other types of algorithms that provide a warning to a surgeon or other medical personnel if the 3D virtual models collide during the articulation of the tracked bones. “ [0036], “The generation of the 3-D bone models (step 92), and the planning of the placement of the virtual implants relative to the bone models (step 94) with or without the aid of the computer simulations (step 96), are all accomplished as described above. Next, the virtual motion of the 3-D bone models with the virtual implants is simulated. The surgeon may further adjust the planned position of the virtual implants to achieve a desired virtual motion that the surgeon prefers the actual bone motion to mimic post-operatively. The desired virtual motion is then saved at step 98 for use intra-operatively.” [0039]),
receive from the electromagnetic tracking unit the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and compute a real-time kinematic of the bone portions, the real-time kinematic of the bone portions comprising a geometry of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another at a given time, receive from the storage unit the recorded kinematic pattern (“A tracking device such as a tracking array or a mechanical tracking probe is attached to each operative bone to allow 6-degrees of freedom (DOF) tracking during the procedure at 26. The bones may be tracked by a tracking system as previously described. The 3D models of each operative bone are then registered to the patient's actual operative bone at step 28.“ [0031], “collision detection may be implemented with a computer program or through other types of algorithms that provide a warning to a surgeon or other medical personnel if the 3D virtual models collide during the articulation of the tracked bones. “ [0036], “At step 30, the surgeon moves a tracked bone having a tracking device associated therewith, and a display shows a virtual representation of the motion in real-time.” [0032]),
and compare the real-time kinematic of the bone portions with the recorded kinematic pattern, determine a difference between the real-time kinematic and the recorded kinematic pattern (“The desired virtual motion is then saved at step 98 for use intra-operatively. At step 100, the surgeon executes the procedure and modifies the bone according to the plan as described above. After modifying the bone, trial components are placed in the joint and the surgeon physically articulates the tracked bones at step 102. The saved virtual motion is then compared with the actual articulation of the tracked bones at step 104. In a specific embodiment, the saved virtual motion of the 3-D bone models with the virtual implants are overlaid on the 3-D bone models registered to the actual bones. To ensure the saved virtual motion corresponds with the physical motion, one of the virtual bones or a portion of one of the virtual bones is mapped to one of or a portion of the 3-D bone model registered to the actual bone. For example, the femoral head and neck of the pre-operative virtual model associated with saved virtual motion is mapped to the femoral head and neck of the virtual model registered to the bone. Therefore, the surgeon can observe how the actual motion of the non-mapped bone corresponds to the saved virtual motion of the non-mapped bone.” [0039])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with determine at least one kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data, the at least one kinematic pattern comprising a set of successive authorized poses of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another, and being recorded on the at least one storage unit, receive from the electromagnetic tracking unit the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and compute a real-time kinematic of the bone portions, the real-time kinematic of the bone portions comprising a geometry of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another at a given time, receive from the storage unit the recorded kinematic pattern, and compare the real-time kinematic of the bone portions with the recorded kinematic pattern, determine a difference between the real-time kinematic and the recorded kinematic pattern as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Chav in view of Zuhars does not specifically teach determine that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, and replace the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements, so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Berman teaches systems and methods for electromagnetic distortion detection [Abstract]
Berman also teaches determine that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold (“the system may determine whether a difference between the one or more updated values and the one or more baseline values is greater than a threshold value. A different threshold value may be set for each of the metric(s) being calculated. When the difference is greater than the threshold value, the system may determine that the EM field has been distorted.” [0135]),
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars as outlined above with determine that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by Berman, because it allows for the system to determine whether local EM distortion is occurring.
Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman does not specifically teach, and replace the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements, so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-tal teaches A method for tracking a position of an object includes using a field sensor [Abstract]
Bar-Tal also teaches to replace the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements, so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement (“applying the coordinate correcting function includes identifying a distortion-contributing element responsively to the measured field strengths, and producing the coordinate correcting function so as to disregard the measured field strengths that are associated with the distortion-contributing element.” [0021], “the fitting process effectively causes the coordinate correcting functions to adjust the relative contribution of each raw location coordinate to the corrected location coordinate responsively to the level of distortion contained in the raw measurements. Raw location coordinates having low distortion content are likely to be emphasized, or given more weight, by the fitting process. Raw location coordinates having high distortion content are likely to be given less weight, or even ignored.” [0089], “The coordinate correcting functions replace these multiple measurements with a single corrected value, which best fits the known location coordinate of the calibrating sensor.” [0096])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with replace the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements, so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 2, Chav in view of Zuhars discloses all limitations noted above except comprising at least one warning device in communication with the data processor, wherein the data processor is further configured to trigger a warning signal generated by the warning device, when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches comprising at least one warning device in communication with the data processor, wherein the data processor is further configured to trigger a warning signal generated by the warning device, when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired (“in response to determining that the EM field is distorted, the system may calculate the amount of distortion. The amount of EM field distortion may be proportional to the change in one or more of the calculated metrics. In this implementation, the system may calculate an amount of the distortion in the EM field based on one or more updated values calculated at a second time and one or more baseline values calculated a first time prior to the second time. The system may encode an indication of the amount of the distortion and provide the encoded indication of the amount of distortion to a display configured to render encoded data. Accordingly, the user may be notified of the amount of the EM field distortion. The user may then be able to determine whether to use navigation based on EM data during the surgical procedure.” [0178]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with comprising at least one warning device in communication with the data processor, wherein the data processor is further configured to trigger a warning signal generated by the warning device, when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Regarding Claim 3, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that the electromagnetic tracking unit is configured to track the relative poses of at least three bone portions linked to one another by at least two joints, and wherein the data processor is further configured to determine which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurement(s).
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that the electromagnetic tracking unit is configured to track the relative poses of at least three bone portions linked to one another by at least two joints, and wherein the data processor is further configured to determine which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurement(s) (“the distortion introduced into a particular field strength measurement is highly dependent on the mutual location and/or orientation of the field generating coil used, the field sensing coil used and the field-distorting object causing the distortion. Therefore, when redundant field measurements are performed using multiple field generating coils 44 and field sensing coils 60 having different locations and orientations, it is often possible to identify one or more coil 44 and/or coil 60 that are dominant contributors of distortion. Discarding the measurements related to these distortion-contributing system elements may significantly reduce the total amount of distortion in the position calculation.” [0125])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with that the electromagnetic tracking unit is configured to track the relative poses of at least three bone portions linked to one another by at least two joints, and wherein the data processor is further configured to determine which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurement(s) as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 4, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that the data processor is configured to determine which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurement(s) by artificially creating pairs of electromagnetic transducers, each pair of electromagnetic transducers comprising one electromagnetic transducer shared with at least one of the other pairs of electromagnetic transducers; receiving the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and compute real-time kinematics of the bone portions; comparing the determined real-time kinematics with the recorded kinematic pattern of authorized displacements for each pair of electromagnetic transducers; determining a difference between the real-time kinematics and the recorded kinematic pattern for each pair of electromagnetic transducers; determining that the measurement of the electromagnetic field given by one pair of electromagnetic transducers is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold; determining which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements based on the determination of which pair of electromagnetic transducers gives impaired measurements.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that the data processor is configured to determine which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurement(s) by artificially creating pairs of electromagnetic transducers, each pair of electromagnetic transducers comprising one electromagnetic transducer shared with at least one of the other pairs of electromagnetic transducers; receiving the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and compute real-time kinematics of the bone portions; comparing the determined real-time kinematics with the recorded kinematic pattern of authorized displacements for each pair of electromagnetic transducers; determining a difference between the real-time kinematics and the recorded kinematic pattern for each pair of electromagnetic transducers; determining that the measurement of the electromagnetic field given by one pair of electromagnetic transducers is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold; determining which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements based on the determination of which pair of electromagnetic transducers gives impaired measurements (“the distortion introduced into a particular field strength measurement is highly dependent on the mutual location and/or orientation of the field generating coil used, the field sensing coil used and the field-distorting object causing the distortion. Therefore, when redundant field measurements are performed using multiple field generating coils 44 and field sensing coils 60 having different locations and orientations, it is often possible to identify one or more coil 44 and/or coil 60 that are dominant contributors of distortion. Discarding the measurements related to these distortion-contributing system elements may significantly reduce the total amount of distortion in the position calculation.” [0125])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with the data processor is configured to determine which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurement(s) by artificially creating pairs of electromagnetic transducers, each pair of electromagnetic transducers comprising one electromagnetic transducer shared with at least one of the other pairs of electromagnetic transducers; receiving the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and compute real-time kinematics of the bone portions; comparing the determined real-time kinematics with the recorded kinematic pattern of authorized displacements for each pair of electromagnetic transducers; determining a difference between the real-time kinematics and the recorded kinematic pattern for each pair of electromagnetic transducers; determining that the measurement of the electromagnetic field given by one pair of electromagnetic transducers is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold; determining which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements based on the determination of which pair of electromagnetic transducers gives impaired measurements as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 5, Chav discloses further comprising at least one display, wherein the data processor is configured to display which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements (“The EM tracking controller 50 may have an interference identifier module 53. The interference identifier module 53 may detect when interference and/or distortion occurs in the tracking set 40. The interference may be of temporary nature, such as the presence of an interfering object, or may be of permanent nature, such as proximity to sizable metallic objects near the EM sensors 41 and/or EM source(s) 42. The interference identifier module 53 may determine the nature of the interference, for example by obtaining the readings of an undedicated EM sensor 41′ at a known distance from the EM source 42. As a result of the identification of interference by the interference identifier module 53, the EM tracking controller 50 may signal an interference to the operator of the CAS system 10 via the interface 80.” [0061], “The interfaces 80 may be monitors and/or screens including wireless portable devices (e.g., phones, tablets), audio guidance, LED displays, among many other possibilities. For example, the interface 80 comprises a graphic user interface (GUI) operated by the system 10.” [0070],).
Regarding Claim 7, Chav discloses all limitations noted above except that the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is determined based on a 3D model of the tracked bone portions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches that the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is determined based on a 3D model of the tracked bone portions (“A process is provided to confirm the registration of bones involved in a joint replacement procedure. The process includes the use of pre-operative planning software to generate a 3-D model of the patient's bony anatomy from a computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image dataset of the patient. A set of 3-D computer aided design (CAD) models of the manufacturer's prosthesis are pre-loaded in the software that allows the user to place the components of a desired prosthesis to the 3-D model of the boney anatomy to designate the best fit, position and orientation of the implant to the bone.” [0028], “the virtual motion of the 3-D bone models with the virtual implants is simulated. The surgeon may further adjust the planned position of the virtual implants to achieve a desired virtual motion that the surgeon prefers the actual bone motion to mimic post-operatively. The desired virtual motion is then saved at step 98 for use intra-operatively. At step 100, the surgeon executes the procedure and modifies the bone according to the plan as described above. After modifying the bone, trial components are placed in the joint and the surgeon physically articulates the tracked bones at step 102. The saved virtual motion is then compared with the actual articulation of the tracked bones at step 104.” [0039])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is determined based on a 3D model of the tracked bone portions as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Regarding Claim 8, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is determined as authorized relative displacements of the electromagnetic transducers.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is determined as authorized relative displacements of the electromagnetic transducers (“In the calibration process, a calibrating sensor similar to position sensor 52 is scanned through multiple locations in the three-dimensional working volume around pad 40. At each location of the calibrating sensor, each of the nine field generating coils 44 in pad 40 is driven to generate a respective tracking field, and the three field sensing coils 60 of the calibrating sensor measure this tracking field. The sensed field strengths associated with each location are recorded.” [0082], “The calibration setup performs the field measurements and records the measurement results along with the associated known locations of the calibrating sensor.” [0084])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is determined as authorized relative displacements of the electromagnetic transducers as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 9, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that the at least two electromagnetic transducers comprise one electromagnetic transmitter adapted to emit the electromagnetic field and at least two electromagnetic receivers adapted to receive and measure the emitted electromagnetic field, each of the electromagnetic receivers being configured to be attached, respectively, to one of the tracked bone portions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that the at least two electromagnetic transducers comprise one electromagnetic transmitter adapted to emit the electromagnetic field and at least two electromagnetic receivers adapted to receive and measure the emitted electromagnetic field, each of the electromagnetic receivers being configured to be attached, respectively, to one of the tracked bone portions (“In the calibration process, a calibrating sensor similar to position sensor 52 is scanned through multiple locations in the three-dimensional working volume around pad 40. At each location of the calibrating sensor, each of the nine field generating coils 44 in pad 40 is driven to generate a respective tracking field, and the three field sensing coils 60 of the calibrating sensor measure this tracking field. The sensed field strengths associated with each location are recorded.” [0082], “The calibration setup performs the field measurements and records the measurement results along with the associated known locations of the calibrating sensor.” [0084])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with the at least two electromagnetic transducers comprise one electromagnetic transmitter adapted to emit the electromagnetic field and at least two electromagnetic receivers adapted to receive and measure the emitted electromagnetic field, each of the electromagnetic receivers being configured to be attached, respectively, to one of the tracked bone portions as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 10, Chav discloses a surgical robotic system comprising (“The CAS system 10 may be used in robotized surgery, and may consequently have a robot arm 20.” [0034]),
at least a robotic arm comprising at least one motorized joint, the robotic arm being configured to hold a surgical tool (“The robot arm 20 has a plurality of joints 22 and links 23, of any appropriate form, to support a tool head 24 that interfaces with the patient.” [0042]),
the surgical tool configured to treat a region of interest of an anatomical structure (“The robot arm 20 may also be configured for collaborative/cooperative mode in which the operator may manipulate the robot arm 20. For example, the tooling end, also known as end effector, may be manipulated by the operator; The CAS controller 60 controls the robot arm 20 for instance using the position and/or orientation produced by the EM tracking controller 50.” [0038],
the system for determining that an electromagnetic disturbance is impairing measurements made by the electromagnetic tracking unit according to claim 1 (“the position and/or orientation of the waveguide model 163 and the position and/or orientation of the EM sensor models 165 are continuously compared to one another, and when a discrepancy exceeding a given threshold is detected, an alert is generated. The alert can be indicated to the surgical environment via for example a visual, auditory or haptic indicator(s) in some embodiments.” [0104]).
Regarding Claim 11, Chav discloses the data processor is further configured to trigger an emergency stop of the robotic arm when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired (“the tracking of the tool 24 using the tracking set 40 and robot arm encoders may be used to detect any discrepancy between the primary and secondary tracking systems. For example, an improper mount of the tool 24 into the chuck of the robot arm 20 could be detected from the output of the tracking set 40, when verified against the position and orientation from the robot driver module 61. The operator may be prompted to verify the mount, via the interface 80. Alternatively or additionally, the secondary tracking system 70 can include another type of optical tracking technology such as the optical waveguide modeling technology, an embodiment of which is described further below.” [0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Chav discloses A method for determining that an electromagnetic disturbance is impairing measurements made by an electromagnetic tracking unit during a surgery (“computer-assisted surgery (CAS) system is generally shown at 10, and is used to perform orthopedic surgery maneuvers on a patient, including pre-operative analysis of range of motion and implant assessment planning, as described hereinafter.” [0033], “The EM tracking controller 50 may have an interference identifier module 53. The interference identifier module 53 may detect when interference and/or distortion occurs in the tracking set 40.” [0061]):
attaching at least two electromagnetic transducers to at least two bone portions linked to one another by at least one joint, among which at least one electromagnetic transducer is configured to emit at least one electromagnetic field and at least one electromagnetic transducer is configured to receive and measure the emitted electromagnetic field (“One or more mounts 31 may be provided on at least some of the tools 30, the robot arm 20, foot and/or thigh supports 51 and S2, for receiving the EM sensors 41 in a known and repeatable manner. Such mounts 31 may also be standalone units (i.e., not on a tool 30), with such mounts 31 being configured to be secured to bones A, organs and the like.” [0045], “Still referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, the EM tracking set 40 includes one or more EM sensor(s) 41 and one or more EM source(s) 42, that are used for electromagnetic tracking. According to some embodiments, the EM tracking set 40 uses tuned AC electromagnetic technology for the tracking of the EM sensors 41 in position and orientation relative to a referential space, such as the X, Y, Z coordinate system.” [0046], “Each sensor 41 has coil(s) to detect a magnetic flux resulting from a electromagnetic field produced by the EM source(s) 42. In an embodiment, one or more of the EM sensors 41 has three non-parallel sensor coils that, when paired with a given EM source 42, may produce position and/or orientation tracking in a referential system including the EM source 42. The tracking may be for both position and orientation, i.e., six degrees of freedom, X, Y, Z in a coordinate system, and pitch, roll and yaw. Fewer or additional DOFs may be tracked. The EM sensors 41 may include different types of sensor components, such as solid-state sensors, quantum, or flux gage sensors. In an embodiment, the solid-state sensors implement giant magnetoresistance (GMR). The sensors 41 may also include superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometers and the like.” [0048], “the tracking controller 50 continuously updates the position and/or orientation of the patient bones and tools in the coordinate system using the data from the tracking set 40. Moreover, once alterations are done, the tracking performed by the tracking controller 50 may be used to validate bone alterations, such as cut planes. In such a case, the surgical planning module 52 provides the planned alterations in the model of the bone.” [0062])
Chav does not specifically disclose determining a kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the at least two bone portions based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data, the kinematic pattern comprising a set of successive authorized poses of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another, and recording the kinematic pattern, receiving relative poses of the at least two bone portions, said relative poses being tracked by the electromagnetic tracking unit, based on the emitted electromagnetic field which has been received and measured, computing a real-time kinematic of the bone portions, the real-time kinematic of the bone portions comprising a geometry of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another at a given time, comparing the real-time kinematic of the bone portions with the recorded kinematic pattern, determining a difference between the real-time kinematic and the recorded kinematic pattern, and determining that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, replacing the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches a process for confirming registration of bones involved in a joint replacement procedure is provided that includes a three dimensional (3-D) models of the bones being generated [Abstract].
Zuhars also teaches determining a kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the at least two bone portions based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data, the kinematic pattern comprising a set of successive authorized poses of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another, and recording the kinematic pattern (“A process is provided to confirm the registration of bones involved in a joint replacement procedure. The process includes the use of pre-operative planning software to generate a 3-D model of the patient's bony anatomy from a computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image dataset of the patient. “ [0028], “collision detection may be implemented with a computer program or through other types of algorithms that provide a warning to a surgeon or other medical personnel if the 3D virtual models collide during the articulation of the tracked bones. “ [0036], “The generation of the 3-D bone models (step 92), and the planning of the placement of the virtual implants relative to the bone models (step 94) with or without the aid of the computer simulations (step 96), are all accomplished as described above. Next, the virtual motion of the 3-D bone models with the virtual implants is simulated. The surgeon may further adjust the planned position of the virtual implants to achieve a desired virtual motion that the surgeon prefers the actual bone motion to mimic post-operatively. The desired virtual motion is then saved at step 98 for use intra-operatively.” [0039]),
receiving relative poses of the at least two bone portions, said relative poses being tracked by the electromagnetic tracking unit, based on the emitted electromagnetic field which has been received and measured, computing a real-time kinematic of the bone portions, the real-time kinematic of the bone portions comprising a geometry of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another at a given time (“A tracking device such as a tracking array or a mechanical tracking probe is attached to each operative bone to allow 6-degrees of freedom (DOF) tracking during the procedure at 26. The bones may be tracked by a tracking system as previously described. The 3D models of each operative bone are then registered to the patient's actual operative bone at step 28.“ [0031], “collision detection may be implemented with a computer program or through other types of algorithms that provide a warning to a surgeon or other medical personnel if the 3D virtual models collide during the articulation of the tracked bones. “ [0036], “At step 30, the surgeon moves a tracked bone having a tracking device associated therewith, and a display shows a virtual representation of the motion in real-time.” [0032]),
and comparing the real-time kinematic of the bone portions with the recorded kinematic pattern, determining a difference between the real-time kinematic and the recorded kinematic pattern (“The desired virtual motion is then saved at step 98 for use intra-operatively. At step 100, the surgeon executes the procedure and modifies the bone according to the plan as described above. After modifying the bone, trial components are placed in the joint and the surgeon physically articulates the tracked bones at step 102. The saved virtual motion is then compared with the actual articulation of the tracked bones at step 104. In a specific embodiment, the saved virtual motion of the 3-D bone models with the virtual implants are overlaid on the 3-D bone models registered to the actual bones. To ensure the saved virtual motion corresponds with the physical motion, one of the virtual bones or a portion of one of the virtual bones is mapped to one of or a portion of the 3-D bone model registered to the actual bone. For example, the femoral head and neck of the pre-operative virtual model associated with saved virtual motion is mapped to the femoral head and neck of the virtual model registered to the bone. Therefore, the surgeon can observe how the actual motion of the non-mapped bone corresponds to the saved virtual motion of the non-mapped bone.” [0039])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with determining a kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the at least two bone portions based on pre-operative data and/or based on per-operative data, the kinematic pattern comprising a set of successive authorized poses of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another, and recording the kinematic pattern, receiving relative poses of the at least two bone portions, said relative poses being tracked by the electromagnetic tracking unit, based on the emitted electromagnetic field which has been received and measured, computing a real-time kinematic of the bone portions, the real-time kinematic of the bone portions comprising a geometry of the tracked bone portions with respect to one another at a given time, comparing the real-time kinematic of the bone portions with the recorded kinematic pattern, determining a difference between the real-time kinematic and the recorded kinematic pattern as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Chav in view of Zuhars does not specifically teach determining that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, replacing the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Berman teaches systems and methods for electromagnetic distortion detection [Abstract].
Berman also teaches determining that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold (“the system may determine whether a difference between the one or more updated values and the one or more baseline values is greater than a threshold value. A different threshold value may be set for each of the metric(s) being calculated. When the difference is greater than the threshold value, the system may determine that the EM field has been distorted.” [0135]),
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars as outlined above with determining that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by Berman, because it allows for the system to determine whether local EM distortion is occurring
Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman does not specifically teach replacing the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-tal teaches A method for tracking a position of an object includes using a field sensor [Abstract]
Bar-Tal also teaches to replacing the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement (“applying the coordinate correcting function includes identifying a distortion-contributing element responsively to the measured field strengths, and producing the coordinate correcting function so as to disregard the measured field strengths that are associated with the distortion-contributing element.” [0021], “the fitting process effectively causes the coordinate correcting functions to adjust the relative contribution of each raw location coordinate to the corrected location coordinate responsively to the level of distortion contained in the raw measurements. Raw location coordinates having low distortion content are likely to be emphasized, or given more weight, by the fitting process. Raw location coordinates having high distortion content are likely to be given less weight, or even ignored.” [0089], “The coordinate correcting functions replace these multiple measurements with a single corrected value, which best fits the known location coordinate of the calibrating sensor.” [0096])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with replacing the relative poses that have been received from the electromagnetic transducer of the electromagnetic tracking unit identified as giving the impaired measurement by a theoretical pose of the bone portions, the theoretical pose being recorded with the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements so as to compute a corrected relative pose of the bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 13, Chav in view of Zuhars discloses all limitations noted above except comprising at least one warning device in communication with the data processor, wherein the data processor is further configured to trigger a warning signal generated by the warning device, when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches comprising at least one warning device in communication with the data processor, wherein the data processor is further configured to trigger a warning signal generated by the warning device, when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired (“in response to determining that the EM field is distorted, the system may calculate the amount of distortion. The amount of EM field distortion may be proportional to the change in one or more of the calculated metrics. In this implementation, the system may calculate an amount of the distortion in the EM field based on one or more updated values calculated at a second time and one or more baseline values calculated a first time prior to the second time. The system may encode an indication of the amount of the distortion and provide the encoded indication of the amount of distortion to a display configured to render encoded data. Accordingly, the user may be notified of the amount of the EM field distortion. The user may then be able to determine whether to use navigation based on EM data during the surgical procedure.” [0178]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with comprising at least one warning device in communication with the data processor, wherein the data processor is further configured to trigger a warning signal generated by the warning device, when it is determined that at least one of the measurements of the electromagnetic field is impaired as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Regarding Claim 14, Chav discloses that the tracked bone portions are two portions of a tibia, the joint being formed during an osteotomy surgery (“in some embodiments, the EM sensors 141 are mounted on an exterior surface of the multicore waveguide fiber 192 instead of being part of the larger sheath-like dual tracking cable 190.” [0108], “Limb attachments 120 a and 120 b are used to attach different portions of the multicore optical fiber 192 to a respective one of the lower leg (e.g., tibia) and the thigh (e.g., femur) of the patient. More specifically, portion 197 f of the multicore optical fiber 192 is attached to the lower leg of the patient and portion 197 g of the multicore optical fiber 192 is attached to the thigh of the patient.” [0125]).
Regarding Claim 15, Chav discloses all limitations noted above except that the tracked bone portions are a femur and a tibia.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches that the tracked bone portions are a femur and a tibia (“An exemplary 3-D modeling of a joint that will be subject to replacement is illustrated in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 depicts a 3-D model of a knee joint including a coronal and sagittal view of the distal femur 12 and proximal tibia 14. The 3-D virtual models may be displayed on a monitor 10 to facilitate pre-operative planning or to monitor the motion of the tracked bones intra-operatively.” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with the tracked bone portions are a femur and a tibia as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Regarding Claim 16, Chav discloses that the tracked bone portions are adjacent vertebrae (“The CAS system 100 is used to perform orthopedic surgery maneuvers on a patient, including pre-operative analysis of range of motion and implant assessment planning, as described hereinafter. The CAS system 100 is shown relative to a patient's knee joint in supine decubitus, but only as an example. The CAS system 100 could be used for other body parts, including non-exhaustively hip joint, spine, and shoulder bones” [0079].
Regarding Claim 17, Chav discloses all limitations noted above except that determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions comprises: acquiring a plurality of 2D images of the bone portions, computing a 3D model of the bone portions based on the plurality of 2D images, simulating, virtually, authorized relative displacement of the bone portions and recording the simulation as the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Zuhars teaches that determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions comprises: acquiring a plurality of 2D images of the bone portions, computing a 3D model of the bone portions based on the plurality of 2D images, simulating, virtually, authorized relative displacement of the bone portions and recording the simulation as the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements (“A process is provided to confirm the registration of bones involved in a joint replacement procedure. The process includes the use of pre-operative planning software to generate a 3-D model of the patient's bony anatomy from a computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image dataset of the patient. A set of 3-D computer aided design (CAD) models of the manufacturer's prosthesis are pre-loaded in the software that allows the user to place the components of a desired prosthesis to the 3-D model of the boney anatomy to designate the best fit, position and orientation of the implant to the bone.” [0028], “the virtual motion of the 3-D bone models with the virtual implants is simulated. The surgeon may further adjust the planned position of the virtual implants to achieve a desired virtual motion that the surgeon prefers the actual bone motion to mimic post-operatively. The desired virtual motion is then saved at step 98 for use intra-operatively. At step 100, the surgeon executes the procedure and modifies the bone according to the plan as described above. After modifying the bone, trial components are placed in the joint and the surgeon physically articulates the tracked bones at step 102. The saved virtual motion is then compared with the actual articulation of the tracked bones at step 104.” [0039])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav as outlined above with determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions comprises: acquiring a plurality of 2D images of the bone portions, computing a 3D model of the bone portions based on the plurality of 2D images, simulating, virtually, authorized relative displacement of the bone portions and recording the simulation as the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements as taught by Zuhars, because there exists a need for a system and process to verify and monitor the accuracy of bone registration prior to and during a computer-assisted surgical procedure [0011].
Regarding Claim 18, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions comprises: attaching each electromagnetic transducer to one of the bone portions to track, applying a determined list of constraints to the tracked bone portions, and recording a kinematic of the tracked bone portions while applying the constraints as the kinematic of authorized relative displacements.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions comprises: attaching each electromagnetic transducer to one of the bone portions to track, applying a determined list of constraints to the tracked bone portions, and recording a kinematic of the tracked bone portions while applying the constraints as the kinematic of authorized relative displacements (“In the calibration process, a calibrating sensor similar to position sensor 52 is scanned through multiple locations in the three-dimensional working volume around pad 40. At each location of the calibrating sensor, each of the nine field generating coils 44 in pad 40 is driven to generate a respective tracking field, and the three field sensing coils 60 of the calibrating sensor measure this tracking field. The sensed field strengths associated with each location are recorded.” [0082], “The calibration setup performs the field measurements and records the measurement results along with the associated known locations of the calibrating sensor.” [0084])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements of the tracked bone portions comprises: attaching each electromagnetic transducer to one of the bone portions to track, applying a determined list of constraints to the tracked bone portions, and recording a kinematic of the tracked bone portions while applying the constraints as the kinematic of authorized relative displacements as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 19, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is implemented for at least three bone portions linked to one another by at least two joints, the method further comprising determining which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives impaired measurement.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is implemented for at least three bone portions linked to one another by at least two joints, the method further comprising determining which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives impaired measurement (“the distortion introduced into a particular field strength measurement is highly dependent on the mutual location and/or orientation of the field generating coil used, the field sensing coil used and the field-distorting object causing the distortion. Therefore, when redundant field measurements are performed using multiple field generating coils 44 and field sensing coils 60 having different locations and orientations, it is often possible to identify one or more coil 44 and/or coil 60 that are dominant contributors of distortion. Discarding the measurements related to these distortion-contributing system elements may significantly reduce the total amount of distortion in the position calculation.” [0125])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with determining the kinematic pattern of authorized relative displacements is implemented for at least three bone portions linked to one another by at least two joints, the method further comprising determining which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives impaired measurement as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 20, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses all limitations noted above except that determining which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives impaired measurement comprises: artificially creating pairs of electromagnetic transducers, each pair of electromagnetic transducers comprising one shared electromagnetic transducer with at least one of the other pairs of electromagnetic transducers, receiving the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and computing real-time kinematics of the bone portions, comparing the determined real-time kinematics with the recorded kinematic pattern of authorized displacements for each pair of electromagnetic transducers, determining a difference between the real-time kinematics and the recorded kinematic pattern for each pair of electromagnetic transducers, determining that the measurement of the electromagnetic field given by one pair of electromagnetic transducers is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, and determining which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements based on the determination of which pair of electromagnetic transducers gives impaired measurements.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-Tal teaches that determining which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives impaired measurement comprises: artificially creating pairs of electromagnetic transducers, each pair of electromagnetic transducers comprising one shared electromagnetic transducer with at least one of the other pairs of electromagnetic transducers, receiving the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and computing real-time kinematics of the bone portions, comparing the determined real-time kinematics with the recorded kinematic pattern of authorized displacements for each pair of electromagnetic transducers, determining a difference between the real-time kinematics and the recorded kinematic pattern for each pair of electromagnetic transducers, determining that the measurement of the electromagnetic field given by one pair of electromagnetic transducers is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, and determining which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements based on the determination of which pair of electromagnetic transducers gives impaired measurements (“the distortion introduced into a particular field strength measurement is highly dependent on the mutual location and/or orientation of the field generating coil used, the field sensing coil used and the field-distorting object causing the distortion. Therefore, when redundant field measurements are performed using multiple field generating coils 44 and field sensing coils 60 having different locations and orientations, it is often possible to identify one or more coil 44 and/or coil 60 that are dominant contributors of distortion. Discarding the measurements related to these distortion-contributing system elements may significantly reduce the total amount of distortion in the position calculation.” [0125])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with determining which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives impaired measurement comprises: artificially creating pairs of electromagnetic transducers, each pair of electromagnetic transducers comprising one shared electromagnetic transducer with at least one of the other pairs of electromagnetic transducers, receiving the tracked relative poses of the bone portions with respect to one another and computing real-time kinematics of the bone portions, comparing the determined real-time kinematics with the recorded kinematic pattern of authorized displacements for each pair of electromagnetic transducers, determining a difference between the real-time kinematics and the recorded kinematic pattern for each pair of electromagnetic transducers, determining that the measurement of the electromagnetic field given by one pair of electromagnetic transducers is impaired when the difference exceeds a predetermined threshold, and determining which electromagnetic transducer gives impaired measurements based on the determination of which pair of electromagnetic transducers gives impaired measurements as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 21, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses further comprising indicating which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives the impaired measurements.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-tal teaches further comprising indicating which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives the impaired measurements (“applying the coordinate correcting function includes identifying a distortion-contributing element responsively to the measured field strengths, and producing the coordinate correcting function so as to disregard the measured field strengths that are associated with the distortion-contributing element.” [0021], “the fitting process effectively causes the coordinate correcting functions to adjust the relative contribution of each raw location coordinate to the corrected location coordinate responsively to the level of distortion contained in the raw measurements. Raw location coordinates having low distortion content are likely to be emphasized, or given more weight, by the fitting process. Raw location coordinates having high distortion content are likely to be given less weight, or even ignored.” [0089], “The coordinate correcting functions replace these multiple measurements with a single corrected value, which best fits the known location coordinate of the calibrating sensor.” [0096])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with further comprising indicating which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives the impaired measurements as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Regarding Claim 22, Chav discloses indicating which electromagnetic transducer(s) gives the impaired measurements comprises displaying a corresponding information or playing a vocal message. (“The EM tracking controller 50 may have an interference identifier module 53. The interference identifier module 53 may detect when interference and/or distortion occurs in the tracking set 40. The interference may be of temporary nature, such as the presence of an interfering object, or may be of permanent nature, such as proximity to sizable metallic objects near the EM sensors 41 and/or EM source(s) 42. The interference identifier module 53 may determine the nature of the interference, for example by obtaining the readings of an undedicated EM sensor 41′ at a known distance from the EM source 42. As a result of the identification of interference by the interference identifier module 53, the EM tracking controller 50 may signal an interference to the operator of the CAS system 10 via the interface 80.” [0061], “The interfaces 80 may be monitors and/or screens including wireless portable devices (e.g., phones, tablets), audio guidance, LED displays, among many other possibilities. For example, the interface 80 comprises a graphic user interface (GUI) operated by the system 10.” [0070]).
Regarding Claim 23, Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman discloses further comprising obtaining a corrected pose of the tracked bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement while computing the real-time kinematic of the bone portions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bar-tal teaches further comprising obtaining a corrected pose of the tracked bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement while computing the real-time kinematic of the bone portions (“applying the coordinate correcting function includes identifying a distortion-contributing element responsively to the measured field strengths, and producing the coordinate correcting function so as to disregard the measured field strengths that are associated with the distortion-contributing element.” [0021], “the fitting process effectively causes the coordinate correcting functions to adjust the relative contribution of each raw location coordinate to the corrected location coordinate responsively to the level of distortion contained in the raw measurements. Raw location coordinates having low distortion content are likely to be emphasized, or given more weight, by the fitting process. Raw location coordinates having high distortion content are likely to be given less weight, or even ignored.” [0089], “The coordinate correcting functions replace these multiple measurements with a single corrected value, which best fits the known location coordinate of the calibrating sensor.” [0096])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chav in view of Zuhars and further in view of Berman as outlined above with further comprising obtaining a corrected pose of the tracked bone portions by ignoring the impaired measurement while computing the real-time kinematic of the bone portions as taught by Bar-Tal, because it improves the accuracy of the position measurements in the presence of such field distortions [0076].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure (US 20110087092 A1, US20230065449A1).
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 STEVEN MALDONADO whose telephone number is 703-756-1421. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:00 pm PST M-Th 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 on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Steven Maldonado/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights