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 § 101
Claim 8
A computer implemented system for altering orientation of an endoscopic image received during a surgical procedure, the system comprising: at least one computing device that is configured with one or more instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to:
provide, via a graphical user interface, an image of a catheter configured with a first marker and captured during a surgical procedure, wherein the catheter is in a respective orientation; provide, via the graphical user interface, a second marker that corresponds to the first marker and is rotatable as a function of at least one control included in the graphical user interface, wherein the second marker appears in an orientation that is different than the catheter;
alter, in response to at least one selection received in the graphical user interface, the orientation of the second marker to match the orientation of the catheter;
automatically provide, via the graphical user interface in response to the altered orientation of the second marker, a first shape that represents at least an obstructed portion of the endoscopic image, wherein the first shape is in a respective orientation; provide, via the graphical user interface, a representation of a second shape that is rotatable as a function of at least one control included in the graphical user interface, wherein the second shape appears in an orientation that is different than the first shape;
alter, in response to at least one selection received in the graphical user interface, the orientation of the second shape to match the orientation of the first shape; and
alter, as a function of the altered orientation of the second shape, orientation of the endoscopic image provided on a display device.
The claim recites a computer implemented system; therefore, it is a machine. Therefore, the claim passes step 1 (YES). Regarding step 2A, the claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. For instance, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps (i.e., proving image of a catheter configured with a first marker, providing a rotatable second marker, altering the orientation of the second marker to match the orientation of the first marker, ….., and altering, as a function of the altered orientation of the second shape, orientation of the endoscopic image provided on a display device. ) are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim 8 is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception as discussed above. Please see MPEP 2106 - Summary of Analysis and Flowchart.
Restriction
Applicants’ election of claims 8-14, without traverse, is acknowledged and made final. Claims 1-7, 15-22 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2025, 09/09/2025, 08/15/2024, 10/18/2023, 02/09/2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8, is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, recites “wherein the second shape appears in an orientation that is different than the first shape.” Instead, this should be recited as “wherein the second shape appears in an orientation that is different than the orientation of the first shape.”
Claim 8, recites, “orientation of an endoscopic image,” in line 1. Instead, this should be recited as “an orientation of an endoscopic image.”
Claim 8, recites, “orientation of the endoscopic image,” in line 21. Instead, this should be recited as “the orientation of the endoscopic image.”
Claim 8, recites, “different than the catheter,” in line 10. Instead, this should be recited as, “different than an orientation of the catheter.”
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites, “wherein at least one of the first and second markers is an asymmetric marker,” in lines 1-2.
In claim 8, first and second markers are considered to be corresponding to each other and the orientation of these two markers are matched. Therefore, it is unclear how orientation of the two markers is matched when one marker is asymmetrical and the other is symmetrical. In other words, if the other marker is symmetrical, it would be difficult to distinguish the change in orientation of the marker when the other marker rotates. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claims 10 and 11 recite “rotational orientation” In view of the claim term interpretation above, these claims should be amended to further limit the claims.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the at least one control is a graphical knob, graphical button, and graphical menu option.” Here, it is unclear how the control can be all three options recited in the claim. Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 8
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, a computer implemented system for altering orientation of an endoscopic image received during a surgical procedure, the system comprising:
at least one computing device that is configured with one or more instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to: provide, via a graphical user interface, an image of a catheter configured with a first marker and captured during a surgical procedure, wherein the catheter is in a respective orientation;
provide, via the graphical user interface, a second marker that corresponds to the first marker and is rotatable as a function of at least one control included in the graphical user interface, wherein the second marker appears in an orientation that is different than an orientation of the catheter; alter, in response to at least one selection received in the graphical user interface, the orientation of the second marker to match the orientation of the catheter;
automatically provide, via the graphical user interface in response to the altered orientation of the second marker, a first shape that represents at least an obstructed portion of the endoscopic image, wherein the first shape is in a respective orientation;
provide, via the graphical user interface, a representation of a second shape that is rotatable as a function of at least one control included in the graphical user interface, wherein the second shape appears in an orientation that is different than the first shape;
alter, in response to at least one selection received in the graphical user interface, the orientation of the second shape to match the orientation of the first shape; and
alter, as a function of the altered orientation of the second shape, orientation of the endoscopic image provided on a display device.
In view of specification, and figures, the term “orientation” appears to include at least a rotational orientation. Therefore, the term orientation has been interpreted and understood as including at least a rotational orientation/motion.
The closest art Donhowe (US 8668638) teaches Graphical User Interface (GUI) that provides a graphically rotatable roll setpoint indicator 602, and matches the distal tip angle of the device with the indicator (FIG.6; col. 6, lines 34-44).
Another art Graetzel (US 20210393338) teaches display where a user can rotate the alignment indicator 1116 in the display by any number of degrees to a position to align with the markings 1118 on the catheter 1104. See para [0170].
Said (US 20130004059) teaches determining a number of feature rotations and feature shifts in each stereoscopic image; and aligning the stereoscopic images based on the feature rotations comparisons and the feature shift comparisons. See FIG. 1, claim 1.
None of the art of record teach - a computer implemented system for altering orientation of an endoscopic image received during a surgical procedure, the system comprising:
at least one computing device that is configured with one or more instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to:
automatically provide, via the graphical user interface in response to the altered orientation of the second marker, a first shape that represents at least an obstructed portion of the endoscopic image, wherein the first shape is in a respective orientation;
provide, via the graphical user interface, a representation of a second shape that is rotatable as a function of at least one control included in the graphical user interface, wherein the second shape appears in an orientation that is different than the orientation of the first shape;
alter, in response to at least one selection received in the graphical user interface, the orientation of the second shape to match the orientation of the first shape; and
alter, as a function of the altered orientation of the second shape, the orientation of the endoscopic image provided on a display device.
Accordingly, claim 8 is considered to include allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
02/19/2026