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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS's) submitted comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449.
Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication US 2023/0081198 A1 to Sowards et al. (hereinafter “US1”) in view of US Patent Application Publication US 2011/0119023 A1 to Duindam et al. (hereinafter “US2”).
Regarding independent Claim 1, US1 describes a computing device (110) implemented method (see Figs 1-2) comprising:
receiving data (via 184) representing strains (see [0049], [0076]) experienced at multiple positions (2201-N) along a fiber (1371-N 147), the fiber being positioned within a surgical theater (see Abstract, [0002]-[0005]); and
determining a shape of the fiber from the received data representing the strains experienced at the multiple positions along the fiber by using a machine learning system, the machine learning system being trained using data representing shapes of fibers and data representing strains at multiple positions along each of the fibers (see [0050]-[0052], [0071]-[0072]).
US1 is silent as to the representation of the determined shape.
US2 describes a computing device (see Fig 1A, 2A, 2C, 2E) implemented method (see [0046]-[0059]) comprising:
receiving data representing strains (see [0053], [0069], [0084], [0087]) experienced at multiple positions (190) along a fiber (195), the fiber being positioned within a surgical theater (see Abstract, [0002]);
determining a shape of the fiber from the received data representing the strains experienced at the multiple positions along the fiber (see [0050]-[0053] ); and
representing the determined shape as functions of: an orientation of a center of the fiber, a first radial axis of the fiber, and a second radial axis of the fiber (see [0051]-[0057], [0070]-[0073], [0078]-[0079], and [0084]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the representation of the determined shape as described by US2 as the result of the determination performed by US1. The motivation for doing so would have been to us a known representing method in order to allow for the shape sensing logic of US1 to render the shape in three-dimensional space on the described display (see US1 at [0051], [0071]).
Regarding Claims 2-3, US1 and US2 are silent as to the particular data used. Optical strain sensing devices that provide magnitude and phase of reflected light or two polarizations of reflected light are well-known in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such strain sensing devices in the obvious method in view of US1 and US2. The motivation for doing so would have been make use of a known technique to improve similar devices methods in the same way.
Regarding Claim 4, US1 describes the fiber as one of a plurality of fibers (1371-N) within a multiple optical fiber sensor, and the method further comprising determining an overall shape of the multiple optical fiber sensor (see [0049]-[0052], [0055], and [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 5, US1 describes the fiber including reflective gratings to provide return signals that represent the strain (see [0011], [0049], [0070], [0074]). US1 is silent as to the specific type of reflective grating. US2 describes the use of reflective fiber Bragg gratings in fiber shape sensors (see [0005], [0044], [0105], [0134]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use fiber Bragg gratings in the obvious method in view of US1 and US2. The motivation for doing so would have been make use of a known technique to improve similar devices methods in the same way.
Regarding Claim 8, US1 describes the multiple positions as equally spaced along the fiber (see [0074]).
Regarding Claims 9-10, US1 is does not describe the training data as comprising simulated data or simulated data and physical data. It is well-known in the art that machine learning systems may be trained using physical data, simulated data, or a combination of the two. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use simulated data or simulated data and physical data for the training data of the obvious method in view of US1 and US2. The motivation for doing so would have been make use of a known technique to improve similar devices methods in the same way.
Regarding independent Claim 11, US1 describes a system comprising:
a computing device (100, see [0041]-[0044]) comprising:
a memory (165) configured to store instructions; and
a processor (160) to execute the instructions to perform operations.
The further limitations of Claim 11, directed to the method/operations are identical to the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the system including such method/operations is obvious in view of US1 and US2 and set forth herein above regarding Claim 1.
Claims 12-15 are substantially similar to the limitations of Claims 2-5. Therefore, Claims 2-5 are rejected in view of US1 and US2 for substantially the same reasoning as set forth herein above.
Regarding independent Claim 16, US1 describes one or more computer readable media storing instructions (see [0041]-[0042], [0044]) that are executable by a processing device (160), and upon such execution cause the processing device to perform operations.
The further limitations of Claim 16, directed to the method/operations are identical to the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the system including such method/operations is obvious in view of US1 and US2 and set forth herein above regarding Claim 1.
Claims 17-20 are substantially similar to the limitations of Claims 2-5. Therefore, Claims 2-5 are rejected in view of US1 and US2 for substantially the same reasoning as set forth herein above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7 describe receiving data from a reference path that is fixed in a reference shape.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art described optical fiber based shape sensing devices/methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874