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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments to the claims filed on December 29, 2025 in response to the Office Action of September 24, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 21, 25, 29 and 35 are amended. Claims 22-23, 26 and 36-37 are canceled. Claims 41-45 are new. Claims 21, 24-25, 27-35 and 38-45 are pending and under examination in this Office action.
Response to Amendment
The rejections to claims 21 and 24-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
In view of the claim amendment, new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is now made.
Objections to the drawings and the specification are also made.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 29, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “360” has been used to designate both a cabinet ([0161]) and a circle ([0165], PG Pub US 2024/0099780 A1); reference character “362” has been used to designate both a light switch ([0161]) and a cross-hair ([0165]); reference character “364” has been used to designate both an outlet ([0161]) and a cylinder ([0166]); and reference character “366” has been used to designate both a door knob ([0161]) and a cylinder ([0165]).
Applicant is requested to carefully review the specification to ensure that each reference character is used to designate one component only.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, [0165] discloses a cross-hair 362 in circle 360. Yet in the corresponding FIG.23, the cross-hair is marked as 262. No. 364 and 366 also have inconsistency description in the disclosure and in the drawings.
Applicant is requested to carefully review the disclosure and the drawings to ensure that all the reference characters are consistently described disclosed and marked in the drawings.
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 21, 24-25, 27-35 and 38-45 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 21 recites “the position of a target entry point” in line 10 that lacks proper antecedent basis. In addition, it is unclear what object this target entry point refers to. For examination purpose, claim 21 is interpreted such that the position of a target entry point refers to “a position of a target entry point of the tool on the one or more bones”. This rejection applies to claims 29 and 35 for the substantially identical term “an entry target” recited in the claim.
Claim 21 recites in lines 2, 4 and 5-8 that a camera configured to capture a region of interest of a patient; the remote system is configured to identify one or more bones in the region of interest, and the remote system is configured to determine a position and trajectory of a tool from image data provided by the camera. These limitations render the scope of the claim indefinite as the limitations are not properly linked. It is unclear whether the one or more bones in the region of interest is identified by the remote system from the image data provided by the camera or from some other sources. It is unclear if the image data provided by the camera is communicated to the remote system. This rejection applies to claim 35 for the substantially identical limitations recited in the claim.
The Applicant is suggested to consider the following proposed claim languages in order to address the above identified issues: a camera configured to capture a region of interest of a patient to generate image data representative of one or more bones in the region of interest; a remote system having computer vision software, wherein the remote system is in communication with the camera to receive (or retrieve) the image data, the remote system is configured to, from the image data, identify the one or more bones, to determine a position and trajectory of a tool, and to determine a position of a target entry point of the tool to the one or more bones during tool movement.
Claims 21 and 35 recite that the display of the position and trajectory of the tool includes a second cross-hair on the cylinder end-face. According to the specification [0166], the cross-hair represents “the center of the drill”. However, the cross-hair is disclosed, illustrated and recited as being on the end-face of the cylinder, and the target entry point is where the pedical screw enters the bone. Hence, it is unclear how the cylinder may represent the tool while the cross-hair on the end face (i.e., at the end of the cylinder) yet represents the center of the tool (in the middle of the tool). For examination purpose, the second cross-hair on the cylinder end-face is interpreted to be the center of the tip of the drill that is used to guide and power the pedical screws to enter the bone via the target entry point.
Claims 21 and 35 recite in the last three lines “an amount of cylinder wall displayed and an alignment of the first cross-hair with the second-cross-hair is indicative of alignment of the tool with the target entry point” that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. This limitation carries a singular verb while there are two requirements recited. According to the specification, both conditions are indicative of alignment of the tool. The verb of this wherein clause should be corrected to the plural form “are”.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 29 and 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The limitations recited in claim 21 in regard to the features of “the remote system is configured to display the position of a target entry point and the position and trajectory of the tool on the electronic display, the display of the position of the target entry point includes a first cross-hair, and the display of the position and trajectory of the tool on the electronic display includes a cylinder comprising a generally circular cylinder end-face and a cylinder wall, with a second cross-hair on the cylinder end-face, and an amount of cylinder wall displayed and an alignment of the first cross-hair with the second-cross-hair is indicative of alignment of the tool with the target entry point", in combination with the other claimed elements, are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
The limitations recited in claim 29 in regard to the features of “the remote system is configured to display an entry target on one or more bones on the electronic display, wherein the remote system is configured to monitor movement of the tool and display an alignment of the tool relative to the entry target on the electronic display, wherein the display of the alignment of the tool relative to the entry target includes a cylinder comprising a cylinder wall, and an amount of cylinder wall displayed is indicative of alignment of the tool with the entry target, with less cylinder wall corresponding to closer alignment of the tool with the entry target and substantially zero cylinder wall indicating that the tool is aligned with the entry target", in combination with the other claimed elements, are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
The limitations recited in claim 35 in regard to the features of “the remote system is configured to display an entry target on a target bone on the electronic display, the entry target including a first cross-hair identifying an entry target for the tool, and to display an alignment of the tool, wherein the display of the alignment of the tool includes a cylinder comprising a generally circular cylindrical end-face and a cylinder wall with a second cross-hair on the cylinder end-face, and wherein an amount of cylinder wall displayed and an alignment of the first cross-hair with the second-cross-hair is indicative of alignment of the tool with the target entry point", in combination with the other claimed elements, are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
Claims 24-25, 27-28, 30-34 and 38-45 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798