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 .
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 10 and 12 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 10 recites the limitation "configured on or in the region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "configured on or in a region" and suggests amending.
Claim 12 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0192759 Lang, hereinafter, “Lang”.
Regarding claim 1, Lang discloses a medical system (Abstract) comprising: at least two mutually different implants (Para 96; Para 392; the implantable markers; Para 1369-1375 show the use of multiple implants); at least two mutually different instruments (Para 96; Para 1369-1375 show the use of multiple instruments, see also Para 1324-1325); a microscope (Para 308 and 965); and a compatibility checking apparatus (Para 1324 and 1325; the imaging tool and the software act as this apparatus), each of the at least two mutually different instruments being configured to cooperate with one of the at least two mutually different implants that is compatible (Para 1324 and 1325 and Para 1369-1375 also describes fitting shapes and sizes), the microscope defining a microscope field of view (Para 965), the compatibility checking apparatus being configured for automatic checking of a compatibility of one of the at least two mutually different instruments and one of the at least two mutually different implants that are positioned together in the microscope field of view (Para 1324-1325).
Regarding claim 2, Lang discloses the microscope is an optical microscope or a digital microscope (Para 145 and 965; the imaging system is an optical imaging system that can be a microscope that detects optical markers).
Regarding claim 3, Lang discloses the microscope comprises an optical microscope image sensor (Para 965 an image sensor is known in the art to be an imager that detects and conveys information used to form an image; therefore, detecting a virtual instrument by means of scanning a code (Para 386) is image sensing).
Regarding claim 4, Lang discloses the compatibility checking apparatus comprises an optical detection device for detecting an optical code (Para 1324-1325 and 1375 disclose mismatching of a tool and implantable, Para 392 shows that the implantable can carry a code for optical detection), the detection device defines a detection field of view, and the microscope field of view and the detection field of view at least partially overlap (Para 965).
Regarding claim 5, Lang discloses an overlap of the microscope field of view and the detection field of view is in a range of approximately 50% to approximately 100% (Para 965; a 100% is within the field of view of the microscope when the optical marker is in a field of view of the microscope and therefore the detection code is fully viewed by the microscopic image).
Regarding claim 6, Lang discloses the optical detection device comprises at least one optical image sensor (Para 145 and 965; the detection is an optical imaging system that detects optical markers; an image sensor is known in the art to be an imager that detects and conveys information used to form an image; therefore detecting a virtual instrument by means of scanning a code (Para 386) is image sensing).
Regarding claim 7, Lang discloses the optical microscope image sensor defines or forms the optical image sensor (Para 145 and 965; the detection is an optical imaging system that detects optical markers; an image sensor is known in the art to be an imager that detects and conveys information used to form an image; therefore, detecting a virtual instrument by means of scanning a code (Para 386) is image sensing).
Regarding claim 8, Lang discloses the at least two mutually different implants and the at least two mutually different instruments each comprise at least one optical code, each optical code of the at least two mutually different implants being different, and each optical code of the at least two mutually different instruments being different (Para 392 and 1324-1325; a code can be a size or shape code or a variety of pattern codes; this system is capable of scanning codes and determining a different shape code and indicating a mismatch; also a color code is possible Para 1369-1375 “Any instrument or implant can be color coded”).
Regarding claim 9, Lang discloses optical codes of implants and instruments that are compatible with one another are identical (Para 1369-1375).
Regarding claim 10, Lang discloses the at least two mutually different instruments comprise an instrument end that is engageable with one of the at least two mutually different implants, and wherein the at least one optical code is arranged or configured on or in a region of the instrument end (Para 392 and 1369-1375; screws and screw driver heads would be color coded at their ends).
Regarding claim 11, Lang discloses each of the optical codes is a bar code, a data matrix code, a QR code, a shape code or a color code (Para 392-393 and 1372).
Regarding claim 12, Lang discloses the image processing device is configured for reading out the at least one code of instruments and/or implants from an image of the detection field of view and/or the microscope field of view (Para 392).
Regarding claim 13, Lang discloses the compatibility checking apparatus comprises an image processing device for automatically determining instruments and/or implants in the microscope field of view (Para 1324-1325).
Regarding claim 14, Lang discloses the compatibility checking apparatus comprises a display device for displaying a result of the compatibility check (Para 1324 discloses an OHMD display; Para 1325 and 1375 indicate visual warnings of mismatch on the OHMD).
Regarding claim 15, Lang discloses the microscope comprises a microscope display device for displaying an image of the microscope field of view, and the microscope display device comprises the display device (Para 308 the microscope magnified image is displayed on the OHMD).
Regarding claim 16, Lang discloses the at least two mutually different implants are medical clips, and wherein the at least two mutually different instruments are clip application instruments (Para 136 and 142-143).
Regarding claim 17, Lang discloses a method (Abstract) for checking compatibility of implants and instruments of a medical system that has at least two mutually different implants (Para 1324-1325) (Para 96; Para 392; the implantable markers; Para 1369-1375 show the use of multiple implants) and at least two mutually different instruments (Para 96; Para 1369-1375 show the use of multiple instruments, see also Para 1324-1325), with each of the at least two mutually different instruments configured to cooperate and be compatible with one of the at least two mutually different implants (Para 1324 and 1325 and Para 1369-1375 also describes fitting shapes and sizes), the method comprising the steps of: positioning one of the at least two mutually different instruments adjacent to said one of the at least two mutually different implants (Para 1324 and 1325); and automatically checking compatibility of said one of the at least two mutually different instruments with said one of the at least two mutually different implants (Para 1324 and 1325) when said one of the at least two mutually different instruments and said one of the at least two mutually different implants are positioned together in a microscope field of view of a microscope (Para 965).
Regarding claim 18, Lang discloses the step of automatically checking compatibility comprises a comparison step in which a first optical code on said one the at least two mutually different implants is compared with a second optical code on said one of the at least two mutually different instruments (Para 392 and 1324-1325; a code can be a size or shape code or a variety of pattern codes; this system is capable of scanning codes and determining a different shape code and indicating a mismatch; also a color code is possible Para 1369-1375 “Any instrument or implant can be color coded”).
Regarding claim 19, Lang discloses the step of outputting a result of the comparison step (Para 1324 discloses an OHMD display; Para 1325 and 1375 indicate visual warnings of mismatch on the OHMD).
Regarding claim 20, Lang discloses the result of the comparison step is output optically and/or acoustically (Para 1324 discloses an OHMD display; Para 1325 and 1375 indicate visual warnings of mismatch of the OHMD; Optical or acoustic is disclosed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796