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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 73-82 (Group I) are withdrawn by the Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 84 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 84, line 4, “CAS” should read –Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS)–.
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 85-98 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 85 recites the “analyzing the workflow data by a sequential image processing module to identity at least one intraoperative workflow;…autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows; receiving feedback data from an execution a plurality of intraoperative workflows”. The relationship between the “at least one intraoperative workflow” and the (a) plurality of intraoperative workflows is unclear. Also, the antecedent basis for the plurality of intraoperative workflows in line 9 is unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes the recitations in lines 8-9 to be “autonomously executing the at least one intraoperative workflow; receiving feedback data from the execution of the at least one intraoperative workflow”.
Claims 86-92 recite the “autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes this to be “autonomously executing the at least one intraoperative workflow” as explained in the rejection of claim 85 above.
Claim 93 recites the “analyzing the workflow data by a sequential image processing module to identity at least one intraoperative workflow;…autonomously managing the plurality of intraoperative workflows; receiving feedback data from an execution a plurality of intraoperative workflows”. The relationship between the “at least one intraoperative workflow” and the (a) plurality of intraoperative workflows is unclear. Also, the antecedent basis for the plurality of intraoperative workflows in line 9 is unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner of record takes the recitations in lines 8-9 to be “autonomously managing the at least one intraoperative workflow; receiving feedback data from the execution of the at least one intraoperative workflow”.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 83-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvi et al (US 9788907), hereinafter Alvi.
Regarding claim 83, Alvi teaches a system (Figs. 1-7 and 11) for automation of a plurality of intraoperative workflows (200)(300)(400)(1100) (“A global bank of surgical procedures, described using surgical data structures ” col. 5, l. 34-52), the system comprising:
a processor (170, 180) (560, 580) (704) (“the one or more data processors”) configured to execute a plurality of artificial intelligence algorithms (“The feature extraction algorithm used to detect a component from the live surgical data may include machine learning iterations…a machine-learning algorithm” Col. 24, l. 49-66; Figs. 1, 5, and 7);
a memory module (710) for storing instructions and data related to the plurality of intraoperative workflows (memory of 170, 180, 560, and 580) (“systems and methods for accessing a surgical data structure that that includes a plurality of nodes, each associated with a procedural state, connected by a plurality of edges. The surgical data structure is used to determine a current node associated with a discrete procedural state and present relevant procedural metadata associated with the procedural state to the relevant system user. The current node is determined by receiving live surgical data, detecting a component from the live surgical data using feature extraction techniques, and identifying a current node based on the component extracted from the live surgical data.” Abstract; “A global bank of surgical procedures , described using surgical data structures , may be stored at the remote server 180” col. 5, l. 34-52; “Local server 700 may comprise one or more storage subsystems 710, comprising hardware and software components used for storing data and program instructions, such as system memory 718 and computer-readable storage media 716. The system memory 718 and/or computer readable storage media 716 may store program instructions that are loadable and executable on processing units 704, as well as data generated during the execution of these programs.”Col. 21, l. 34 - col. 22, l. 20; Figs. 1, 5, and 7);
a communication module (160) for receiving input data and transmitting output data (“The live data is transmitted to a wireless hub 160 in communication with a local server 170.” Col. 5, l. 12-33; Fig. 1);
a software module including a data layer, an algorithm layer, and an application layer (“a machine-learning algorithm” Col. 24, l. 49-66) (“Processing unit 704 may execute a variety of software processes embodied in program code , and may maintain multiple concurrently executing programs or processes” col. 20, l. 25-34), the algorithm layer including an artificial intelligence module configured to analyze input data, identify the plurality of intraoperative workflows and generate corresponding automation instructions (“The feature extraction algorithm used to detect a component from the live surgical data may include machine learning iterations…a machine-learning algorithm” Col. 24, l. 49-66);
a control module (704) configured to autonomously execute and manage the plurality of intraoperative workflows (Abstract; “executable on processing units 704” Col. 21, l. 34-53; “Referring next to FIG . 8 , a flowchart of a process 800 for the automated provisioning of real - time custom procedural surgical guidance 800 is illustrated .” Col. 24, l. 5 – Col. 25, l. 45; Figs. 7-8); and
a feedback mechanism (900) (1000) (1100) for receiving feedback data from an execution the plurality of intraoperative workflows (“live data”) and updating the artificial intelligence module based on the feedback data to provide prediction outputs (“The structures and technologies described herein may provide real time recommendations of surgical actions based on live data as described in process 900 , as depicted in FIG . 9 …At block 906, one or more potential target nodes are identified. Each potential node can be connected (e.g., directly connected) to the current node by an edge, which can be identified at block 908…Each of the one or more potential target nodes and/or each node connecting the current node to a potential node of the one or more potential target nodes may be associated with one or more variables, such as a weight, representing, for example, a potential surgical outcome, surgical risk, outcome probability and/or predicted time commitment.” Col. 25, l. 45 – col. 26, l. 41; Fig. 9-11).
Regarding claim 84, Alvi teaches the system of claim 83, the control module further configured to provide automatic navigation of a system (“Live surgical data may be collected by any device integrated with the surgical navigation system.”);
wherein the system includes at least one of augmented reality tracking, robotic surgical, sensor-based systems, or CAS navigation (“the structures and technologies described herein may be configured to recommend the most appropriate surgical route, dependent on patient specific data (e.g., and/or live data). Further, the weights associated with the surgical data structure may be specifically set by the systems and methods described herein” Col. 14, l. 57 – 64. “With reference to now to FIG. 7, a block diagram of an illustrative surgical navigation local server 700 is shown.” Col. 19, l. 45 – 52; “if the first implementation of the systems and methods described herein requires manual navigation through the procedure by the user (e.g., surgeon, nurse or team member), the resulting dataset of live surgical images and associated navigation commands can be used as an effective algorithm training resource using machine learning software.” Col. 24, the last para.).
Claims 85 and 90-93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baloch et al (US 20130297265), hereinafter Baloch.
Regarding claim 85, Baloch teaches a computer-implemented method or automation of a plurality of intraoperative workflows (“The design process for the surgical plan in orthopedics and/or the design of a personalized cutting guide and/or implant are automated in a workflow frame work.” Abstract; “For realizing the rules with the script interpreter, a scripting language with context free grammar is designed. For example, Bison and Flex tools are used.” [0059]; Fig. 4), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor (12), an input of workflow data (20) (22) (70) (“the input surface from act 70” [0057]; Figs. 1 -4) related to an orthopedic procedure for a subject (“The user may input an activation command, select a patient, select patient bone data, select a surgical procedure or otherwise initialize the workflow,” [0025] “Orthopedic surgical planning for joint replacement implants” [0042]; “The user inputs the bone information by selecting a dataset, image, or images for a patient. The information may be obtained by receiving a transmission, uploading from memory, or scanning the patient.” [0048]);
analyzing the workflow data by a sequential image processing module (12) to identity at least one intraoperative workflow (“The user may input an activation command, select a patient, select patient bone data, select a surgical procedure or otherwise initialize the workflow, but the processor 12 sequences through the rules and generates the surgical plan and/or cutting guide design without further user input.” [0025]);
generating at least one corresponding automation instruction to a control module (“The sequencing occurs automatically. Once activated, the surgical plan is created without user input or interaction.” [0056]);
autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows (“The use of a collection of rules and corresponding script in the knowledgebase with the workflow sequencing is modular. The same structure and approach may be used for different orthopedic surgeries…The advantage of this modular approach is that the workflow modeler and the shape engine are automated and not specific to a particular application.” [0054] “To implement the workflow automatically, the script interpreter interprets the rules in the order indicated by the knowledgebase.” [0055]);
receiving feedback data from an execution a plurality of intraoperative workflows (“the user may confirm and/or alter operation of the workflow at different points during the workflow.” [0025]; “the proposed result of the rule implementation is presented for the user.” [0056]); and
updating the sequential image processing module based on the feedback data (“the user may … alter operation of the workflow at different points during the workflow.” [0025]; “the proposed result of the rule implementation is presented for the user. The user then …makes an alteration.” [0056]).
Regarding claim 90, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85, wherein autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes providing a user with visual guidance for intraoperative placement of an implant the subject (“the display 16 generates black and white or color pixels in a Cartesian or other coordinate format for presenting a graphical user interface, surgical plan, implant model, implant image, cutting guide model, cutting guide image, bone image, or combinations thereof.” [0021]; “The workflow provides design for the implant and/or cutting guide. More than modeling these tools, the processor 12 also provides a surgical plan, which serves as a guide to the surgeon on how to practically carry out the surgery.” [0028]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 91, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85, wherein autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes providing a user with visual guidance for a reduction procedure in the subject (“the display 16 generates black and white or color pixels in a Cartesian or other coordinate format for presenting a graphical user interface, surgical plan, implant model, implant image, cutting guide model, cutting guide image, bone image, or combinations thereof.” [0021]; “The workflow provides design for the implant and/or cutting guide. More than modeling these tools, the processor 12 also provides a surgical plan, which serves as a guide to the surgeon on how to practically carry out the surgery.” [0028]; “the cutting guide indicates the position for cut A, where cuts B and C are defined thereby so not separately guided by the cutting guide. The cutting guide may alternatively include edges, slots, or printing indicating the relative position of cuts B and C to the cut A.” [0036]; “The cutting guide is specific to the patient.” [0081]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 92, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85, wherein autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes providing a user with guidance for placement of an implant (“The surgical plan shows how to perform cuts and how to use the … implants for the patient.” [0017]; “the display 16 generates black and white or color pixels in a Cartesian or other coordinate format for presenting a graphical user interface, surgical plan, implant model, implant image, … bone image” [0021]; “The workflow provides design for the implant … guide. More than modeling these tools, the processor 12 also provides a surgical plan, which serves as a guide to the surgeon on how to practically carry out the surgery.” [0028]; “The surgery may be for designing an implant without a cutting guide or without removal of bone. The workflow may be used to select a type (e.g., style) and/or size of implant to use.” [0034]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 93, Baloch teaches a computer-implemented method for automation of a plurality of intraoperative workflows (“The design process for the surgical plan in orthopedics and/or the design of a personalized cutting guide and/or implant are automated in a workflow frame work.” Abstract; “For realizing the rules with the script interpreter, a scripting language with context free grammar is designed. For example, Bison and Flex tools are used.” [0059]; Fig. 4), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor (12), an input of workflow data (20) (22) (70) (“the input surface from act 70” [0057]; Figs. 1 -4) related to an orthopedic procedure for a subject (“The user may input an activation command, select a patient, select patient bone data, select a surgical procedure or otherwise initialize the workflow,” [0025] “Orthopedic surgical planning for joint replacement implants” [0042]; “The user inputs the bone information by selecting a dataset, image, or images for a patient. The information may be obtained by receiving a transmission, uploading from memory, or scanning the patient.” [0048]);
analyzing the workflow data by a sequential image processing module (12) to identity at least one intraoperative workflow (“The user may input an activation command, select a patient, select patient bone data, select a surgical procedure or otherwise initialize the workflow, but the processor 12 sequences through the rules and generates the surgical plan and/or cutting guide design without further user input.” [0025]);
generating at least one corresponding automation instruction to a control module (“The sequencing occurs automatically. Once activated, the surgical plan is created without user input or interaction.” [0056]);
autonomously managing the plurality of intraoperative workflows (“The use of a collection of rules and corresponding script in the knowledgebase with the workflow sequencing is modular. The same structure and approach may be used for different orthopedic surgeries…The advantage of this modular approach is that the workflow modeler and the shape engine are automated and not specific to a particular application.” [0054] “To implement the workflow automatically, the script interpreter interprets the rules in the order indicated by the knowledgebase.” [0055]);
receiving feedback data from an execution a plurality of intraoperative workflows (“the user may confirm and/or alter operation of the workflow at different points during the workflow.” [0025]; “the proposed result of the rule implementation is presented for the user.” [0056]); and
updating the sequential image processing module based on the feedback data (“the user may … alter operation of the workflow at different points during the workflow.” [0025]; “the proposed result of the rule implementation is presented for the user. The user then …makes an alteration.” [0056]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 86-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 85, and further in view of Sela et al (US 20160005169), hereinafter, Sela.
Regarding claim 86, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85.
Baloch does not teach tracking instruments.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Sela discloses a system and method for detecting tissue and fiber tract deformation, which is analogous art. Sela teaches that autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes tracking instruments (“The port trajectory in step 236 may already be a positional function of time, such as the trace of an intraoperatively inserted instrument as tracked by a surgical navigation system… The port geometry (step 234) and port trajectory (step 236) are combined to determine a port location at any specific time.” [0127]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, based on Sela’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of tracking instruments, as taught by Sela, in order to facilitate surgery by making it safer for the patient.
Regarding claim 87, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85.
Baloch does not teach navigating instruments.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Sela discloses a system and method for detecting tissue and fiber tract deformation, which is analogous art. Sela teaches that autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes navigating instruments (“intraoperative surgical navigation” [0087]. “The port trajectory in step 236 may already be a positional function of time, such as the trace of an intraoperatively inserted instrument as tracked by a surgical navigation system… The port geometry (step 234) and port trajectory (step 236) are combined to determine a port location at any specific time.” [0127]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, based on Sela’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows that includes navigating instruments, as taught by Sela, in order to facilitate surgery by making it safer for the patient.
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 85, and further in view of Haechler et al (WO 2007017642), hereinafter, Haechler.
Regarding claim 88, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85.
Baloch does not teach navigating implants.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Haechler discloses computer assisted surgery system, which is analogous art. Haechler teaches that autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes navigating implants (“the actual navigated position of the implants”; p. 11, l. 20-30. “Figure 29 shows a screen shot 720 of a navigation screen of the user interface in a three- up mode. Navigated reaming of an acetabulum is illustrated by the embodiment shown. The navigation screen includes a depth gauge or aiming function which provides a graphical indication of whether the navigated position of the instrument or implant corresponds with the planned position.”; p. 40, l. 10-20).
Therefore, based on Haechler’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows that includes navigating implants, as taught by Haechler, in order to facilitate surgery by making it safer for the patient.
Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 85, and further in view of Penenberg (US 20140093154), hereinafter, Penenberg.
Regarding claim 89, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 85.
Baloch does not teach that autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes positioning a grid on an intraoperative image of the subject.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Penenberg discloses surgical method and workflow, which is analogous art. Penenberg teaches that autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows includes positioning a grid on an intraoperative image of the subject (“A surgical method and workflow to improve the efficiency of a surgical procedure by intraoperatively acquiring a digital radiographic image, processing the digital radiographic image, and using information based on the radiographic image to make adjustments during the surgical procedure.” Abstract; “a grid 502 may be provided. Using the grid 502, the image orientation can be verified and adjusted. For example, the image 500 can be rotated by any degree, then flipped, inverted, or otherwise adjusted, and processed further as discussed below.” [0021]).
Therefore, based on Penenberg’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously executing the plurality of intraoperative workflows that includes positioning a grid on an intraoperative image of the subject, as taught by Penenberg, in order to facilitate surgery by using visualization aids.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 93, and further in view of Takata et al (US 20150310172), hereinafter, Takata.
Regarding claim 94, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 93.
Baloch does not teach that autonomously managing includes providing a first image scene to a second scene automated image interpretation.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Takata discloses similar case retrieval apparatus, similar case retrieval method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, similar case retrieval system, and case database, which is analogous art. Takata teaches that autonomously managing includes providing a first image scene (S101) to a second scene automated image interpretation (S106) (“Similar case retrieving unit 107 retrieves, from case database 101, case data each showing a state similar to that of the interpretation target image, by comparing the image features extracted by image feature extracting unit 103 to image features extracted from medical images contained in case data registered in case database 101.” [0064]; “similar case retrieving unit 107 retrieves case data similar to the state indicated by the interpretation target image from case database 101 by comparing image features extracted from medical images contained in case data registered in case database 101 to image features extracted by image feature extracting unit 103 in step S102… if the unilateral distribution has been identified by unilateral distribution identifying unit 106 in step S105,… case data… are searched (step S106).” [0083] ; “By performing the processing as shown in FIG. 8, in step S106, it is possible to retrieve case data each containing an image similar to the interpretation target image from case database 101.” Figs. 5 and 8).
Therefore, based on Takata’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously managing that includes providing a first image scene to a second scene automated image interpretation, as taught by Takata, in order to facilitate surgery by automating certain routine operations.
Claim 95 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 93, and further in view of Alvi et al (US 9788907), hereinafter, Alvi.
Regarding claim 95, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 93.
Baloch does not teach that autonomously managing includes providing surgical state identification.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Alvi discloses automated provision of real-time custom procedural surgical guidance, which is analogous art. Alvi teaches that autonomously managing includes providing surgical state identification (“The live surgical data can be processed in accordance with the surgical data structure associated with the surgery to identify a specific procedural state (or stage).” Col. 3, 23-40. “At block 806, a component is detected from the live surgical data. In some embodiments, the method detects a component from the live surgical data 806 using feature extraction… The feature extraction algorithm used to detect a component from the live surgical data may include machine learning iterations.” Col. 24, l. 49-65. “The electronic data may (for example) identify the procedural state (e.g., by identifying a state of a patient, progress of a surgery, etc.), identify an action that is being performed or is about to be performed (e.g., as identified in an edge that connects a node corresponding to the procedural state with a node corresponding to a next procedural state), and/or identify one or more considerations (e.g., a risk, tools being used or that are about to be used, a warning, etc.). The electronic data may relate to a trajectory. For example, electronic data may indicate when an action is being performed that is contrary to (or, in other instances, in accordance with) a typical action, recommended action, or action prescribed by a guideline at a state of surgery.” Col. 29, l. 3-16; Figs. 8-10).
Therefore, based on Alvi’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously managing that includes providing surgical state identification, as taught by Alvi, in order to facilitate surgery by automating certain routine operations.
Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 93, and further in view of Ohta et al (US 20130238363), hereinafter, Ohta.
Regarding claim 96, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 93.
Baloch does not teach that autonomously managing includes providing workflow step identification.
However, in the medical examinations methods and systems field of endeavor, Ohta discloses medical examination assistance system and method of assisting medical examination, which is analogous art. Ohta teaches that autonomously managing includes workflow step identification (“The workflow step information table 210 is a table that stores workflow step information, which is information to identify each step of the workflow, and one step is one record…the workflow No. field 218 stores identification information for uniquely identifying the workflow to which the workflow step belongs. The parent workflow step No. is identification information for identifying a workflow step, which is further attached to a corresponding workflow step, before the corresponding workflow step. The child workflow step No. is identification information to identify a workflow step, which is further attached to a corresponding workflow step, after the corresponding workflow step. The parent workflow step No. and the child workflow step No. serve to link the order requester and the order receiver to each other.” [0045]).
Therefore, based on Ohta’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously managing that includes providing workflow step identification, as taught by Ohta, in order to facilitate surgery by automating certain routine operations.
Claims 97-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baloch as applied to claim 93, and further in view of Peshkin et al (CA 2255041), hereinafter, Peshkin.
Regarding claim 97, Baloch teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 93.
Baloch does not teach that autonomously managing includes planning at least one virtual element.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Peshkin discloses stereotactic surgical procedure apparatus and method, which is analogous art. Peshkin teaches that autonomously managing includes planning at least one virtual element (“11. The method of claim 1 wherein the representation of the at least one of trajectory, position, and orientation of the surgical device is a projection of a virtual guidewire defining, at least in part, a trajectory of insertion of the surgical device into the body.” p. 36).
Therefore, based on Peshkin’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of autonomously managing that includes planning at least one virtual element, as taught by Peshkin, in order to facilitate surgery by providing visual aids.
Regarding claim 98, Baloch modified by Peshkin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 97.
Baloch does not teach that planning at least one virtual element includes determining a trajectory projection from a guidewire.
However, in the surgical methods and systems field of endeavor, Peshkin discloses stereotactic surgical procedure apparatus and method, which is analogous art. Peshkin teaches that planning at least one virtual element includes determining a trajectory projection from a guidewire (“11. The method of claim 1 wherein the representation of the at least one of trajectory, position, and orientation of the surgical device is a projection of a virtual guidewire defining, at least in part, a trajectory of insertion of the surgical device into the body.” p. 36).
Therefore, based on Peshkin’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Baloch to employ the step of planning at least one virtual element that includes determining a trajectory projection from a guidewire, as taught by Peshkin, in order to facilitate surgery by providing visual aids to a surgeon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights