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 .
Cited Prior Art
The present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. (See MPEP 2141.02(VI)) Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all relevant portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I) reading on claims 1-6, 20-26 in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 1, 20, and dependent claims 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 1 and 20 recite “generate an overlay of the perfusion zone model over the at least one clamp location on the intraoperative image of the tissue and the blood vessel, respectively”. It is unclear what “respectively” means in this context, i.e. which elements are to be considered “respectively” with which other elements. It will be interpreted as provided in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic US20170007350 and further in view of Taylor US20120041324.
Popovic discloses for claim 1, “An imaging system comprising:
an endoscopic camera (imaging device 105; fig 1; 0030) configured to acquire an intraoperative image of tissue and a blood vessel;
an image processing device (processors 114; fig 1; 0030) coupled to the endoscopic camera, the image processing device including a processor configured to:
receive a model of the tissue (model 136; fig 1; 0033) and an operative plan (0022-0023 describes providing a surgical plan based on the model); and
generate an overlay of the model on the intraoperative image of the tissue and the blood vessel, respectively (0038 describes registering the model with the real-time endoscopic image); and
a screen (display 118; fig 1; 0036) configured to display the overlay and the intraoperative image”.
Popovic does not disclose the invention with respect to a perfusion model, i.e.:
receive a “perfusion zone” model of the tissue and an operative plan “including at least one clamp location; and
generate an overlay of the “perfusion zone” model “over the at least one clamp location” on the intraoperative image of the tissue and the blood vessel, respectively.
Taylor teaches in the same field of endeavor, generating a perfusion model of an organ (fig 27, 29, 38; 0275), such as a heart and overlaying/registering the model over a structural image (0268) in order to analyze blood flow perfusion, including occlusion, i.e. clamping (0318, 0321-0322). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Taylor into the invention of Popovic in order to configure the imaging system e.g. as claimed because it allows simulating a complete blockage of perfusion to optimize medical therapy or avert potentially dangerous consequences of medications (Taylor:0227).
Popovic discloses for claim 20, “A surgical robotic system comprising:
a robotic arm (robot 108; fig 1; 0031) including an endoscopic camera (imaging device 105; fig 1; 0030) configured to acquire an intraoperative image of tissue and a blood vessel;
an image processing device (processors 114; fig 1; 0030) coupled to the endoscopic camera, the image processing device including a processor configured to:
receive a model of the tissue (model 136; fig 1; 0033) and an operative plan (0022-0023 describes providing a surgical plan based on the model); and
generate an overlay of the model over the intraoperative image of the tissue and the blood vessel, respectively (0038 describes registering the model with the real-time endoscopic image); and
a screen (display 118; fig 1; 0036) configured to display the overlay and the intraoperative image”.
Popovic does not disclose the invention with respect to a perfusion model, i.e.:
receive a “perfusion zone” model of the tissue and an operative plan “including at least one clamp location; and
generate an overlay of the “perfusion zone” model “over the at least one clamp location” on the intraoperative image of the tissue and the blood vessel, respectively.
Taylor teaches in the same field of endeavor, generating a perfusion model of an organ (fig 27, 29, 38; 0275), such as a heart and overlaying/registering the model over a structural image (0268) in order to analyze blood flow perfusion, including occlusion, i.e. clamping (0318, 0321-0322). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Taylor into the invention of Popovic in order to configure the imaging system e.g. as claimed because it allows simulating a complete blockage of perfusion to optimize medical therapy or avert potentially dangerous consequences of medications (Taylor:0227).
Claim(s) 2-4, 21, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic and Taylor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen US20230355360.
Popovich does not disclose for claim 2, “The imaging system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a depth map and a point cloud based on the intraoperative image”. Jensen teaches in the same field of endeavor, a depth map specifically as a point cloud 0165. Since Popovich fails to disclose the specific nature of the depth map, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable depth map configuration known in the art, including the one taught by Jensen to achieve the predictable result of providing a depth map.
Modified Popovic discloses for claim 3, “The imaging system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to register the perfusion zone model (Popovic: 0038 describes registering the model with the real-time endoscopic image) with the intraoperative image based on the depth map and the point cloud (Jensen: registration via a depth map specifically as a point cloud 0165)”.
Modified Popovic discloses for claim 4, “The imaging system according to claim 3, wherein the perfusion zone model includes an ischemic volume zone (Taylor: 0272 describes quantifying perfusion to determine ischemic areas, i.e. ischemic volume; additionally, since applicant has not explicitly provided a definition of perfusion and ischemia in the specification and it appears the claims are treating these as inverse metrics, providing perfused data is considered as also providing ischemic data since they are the inverse of each other, i.e. 100% perfusion is considered 0% ischemia and vice versa; applicant should provide a definition if these terms are to be interpreted differently and cite support in the specification or indicate as new matter) and a perfused volume zone”.
Popovich does not disclose for claim 21, “The surgical robotic system according to claim 20, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a depth map and a point cloud based on the intraoperative image”. Jensen teaches in the same field of endeavor, a depth map specifically as a point cloud 0165. Since Popovich fails to disclose the specific nature of the depth map, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable depth map configuration known in the art, including the one taught by Jensen to achieve the predictable result of providing a depth map.
Modified Popovic discloses for claim 22, “The surgical robotic system according to claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to register the perfusion zone model (Popovic: 0038 describes registering the model with the real-time endoscopic image) with the intraoperative image based on the depth map and the point cloud (Jensen: registration via a depth map specifically as a point cloud 0165)”.
Modified Popovic discloses for claim 24, “The surgical robotic system according to claim 20, wherein the perfusion zone model includes an ischemic volume zone (Taylor: 0272 describes quantifying perfusion to determine ischemic areas, i.e. ischemic volume; additionally, since applicant has not explicitly provided a definition of perfusion and ischemia in the specification and it appears the claims are treating these as inverse metrics, providing perfused data is considered as also providing ischemic data since they are the inverse of each other, i.e. 100% perfusion is considered 0% ischemia and vice versa; applicant should provide a definition if these terms are to be interpreted differently and cite support in the specification or indicate as new matter) and a perfused volume zone”.
Claim(s) 5, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic, Taylor, and Jensen as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Arakita US20180357767.
Modified Popovic discloses for claim 5, “The imaging system according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to register the ischemic volume zone and the perfused volume zone with an ischemic surface and a perfused surface of the tissue, respectively (Taylor: 0138 describes data for imaging and perfusion as cited in earlier claims with respect to the surfaces of the myocardium; additionally, Taylor 0132-0133 mentions the analysis for myocardium or other heart tissue, where the surface of the myocardium is included)”.
Modified Popovic discloses for claim 25, “The surgical robotic system according to claim 24, wherein the processor is further configured to register the ischemic volume zone and the perfused volume zone with an ischemic surface and a perfused surface of the tissue, respectively (Taylor: 0138 describes data for imaging and perfusion as cited in earlier claims with respect to the surfaces of the myocardium; additionally, Taylor 0132-0133 mentions the analysis for myocardium or other heart tissue, where the surface of the myocardium is included).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovic and Taylor as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of DiMaio US20230186574 .
Popovich does not disclose for claim 23, “The surgical robotic system according to claim 20, wherein the processor is further configured to register the perfusion zone model with the intraoperative image based on kinematics data of the robotic arm”. DiMaio teaches in the same field of endeavor, registration based on the kinematics data of the robotic arm 0087. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of DiMaio into the invention of Popovich in order to configure the surgical robotic system e.g. as claimed because it allows a region-based augmentation system for a surgical procedure allowing mixed reality technologies allowing a user to view a procedure that incorporates both real elements and virtual elements (0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
6/17/26
Prosecution Insights