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 of Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on October 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Group II (Claims 12-20) are hereby withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
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 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 21-22 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.
In Claim 1, the controller determines “a secondary second position using a secondary tracking system”. However, there is no structural element to measure the secondary second position claimed. As such, the scope sought by the claim is confusing. For example, should there be a tracking marker on the surgical tool and optical transmitter/receiver (for example) as part of the claim?
In Claim 11, “a pose of the surgical tool” is lacks antecedent basis with the positions defined in claim 1, e.g. “a position of the surgical tool”, “first position [of the surgical tool]”, “second position [of the surgical tool]”, etc. Is this meant to refer to the second position?
Further in claim 11, “a segment” is not understood. Is this meant to be a time period, i.e. time segment?
Additionally in claim 11, “a first pose of the surgical tool” lacks antecedent basis. Is this meant to be the same as “the first position” from claim 1?
Claims 3-6, 9-10, 21-22 are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180199999 to Syverson.
Regarding Claim 1, Syverson teaches a tracking system comprising:
a surgical tool comprising:
an acceleration sensor (sensors 403, Figure 4) generating accelerometer signals (accelerometer 403, par. 0066); and
a controller in communication with the acceleration sensor (computer 113, Figure 4), wherein the controller is configured to determine a position of the surgical tool by:
measuring a time period between a first time where the surgical tool is at a first position and a second time where the surgical tool is at a second position (implicitly done as part of mathematical integration over time, par. 0066; the sensor is coupled to object 204, Figure 4 of which moves as it is used during surgery between first and second positions);
determining the second position based on the first position and the accelerometer signals (with respect to an initial frame of reference including known starting orientation, known starting velocity, and known starting position, par. 0066-0067).
Syverson does not teach determining a distance between the first position and the second position; and responsive to determining that the distance is greater than a distance threshold, determining a secondary second position using a secondary tracking system.
However, Syverson teaches when low accuracy is detected, a secondary tracking system is used for a position state update, in particular position variance (implicitly includes distance) between sensors is compared to a threshold to determine the accuracy (par. 0071-0072). Syverson also teaches a pre-determined time period is used to trigger handover to the secondary tracking system in order to minimize drift error in the accelerometer tracking system (par. 0071).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it a routine matter of design choice to utilize a change distance threshold as an indicator of inaccuracy in an accelerometer-based tracking system in view of the teachings of Syverson since it is known that drift error accumulates over longer time periods and longer distances. In a similar manner as in Syverson, taking the same concept of time period thresholding to trigger the handover, it would produce only predictable results to utilize change distance to trigger the handover.
Regarding Claim 3, Syverson further teaches wherein the surgical tool includes a gyroscope configured to generate gyroscope signals, and wherein the controller determines a trajectory of the surgical tool based on the gyroscope signals (gyroscope 405, par. 0066; continuous tracking, par. 0065-0066).
Regarding Claim 4, Syverson further teaches wherein the gyroscope signals comprise orientation signals about an x-axis, y-axis, and a z-axis (three-axis gyroscope 405, par. 0066).
Regarding Claim 5, Syverson further teaches wherein the accelerometer signals comprise an x-axis acceleration signal, a y-axis acceleration signal, and a z-axis acceleration signal (three-axis accelerometer 403, par. 0066).
Regarding Claim 6, Syverson further teaches wherein the acceleration sensor communicates with the controller via at least one of a wire or wirelessly (wire or wireless link, par. 0067).
Regarding Claim 9, Syverson further teaches wherein the secondary tracking system comprises an electromagnetic tracking system (optical tracking system 105, Figure 4, par. 0071; optical is on the electromagnetic spectrum and therefore a type of “electromagnetic” tracking system).
Regarding Claim 10, Syverson further teaches wherein the secondary tracking system comprises an optical tracking system (optical tracking system 105, Figure 4, par. 0071).
Regarding Claim 11, Syverson further teaches wherein the controller comprises a processor (processor/computer 113, Figure 4, par. 0066); wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions to determine a pose of the surgical tool after a segment based on the acceleration signals and the gyroscope signals relative to a first pose of the surgical tool (dead reckoning technique is used, par. 0066, of which implicitly estimates a current position based on its last known location, acceleration/speed, direction/heading, and elapsed time segment; acceleration/speed and direction/heading are the inertial signals).
Regarding Claim 22, Syverson further teaches wherein the first position of the surgical tool is based on a registration point (known starting position, par. 0066).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 further defines the distance threshold is based on an expected maximum amount of movement from the first position and the second position. While Syverson discusses triggering handover between acceleration-based tracking system and a secondary tracking system (e.g. optical tracking system) in order to minimize drift error accumulation (e.g. across a longer time period or distance), Syverson does not teach or suggest triggering the handover based on an expected amount of movement, such as leaving a working volume. The claimed invention thereby increases tracking accuracy outside of a designated zone by switching to the secondary tracking system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. Applicant argues that Syverson fails to disclose or suggest “determining a distance between the first position and the second position” and “responsive to determining that the distance is greater than a distance threshold, determining a secondary second position using a secondary tracking system”. While Examiner agrees Syverson does not teach the limitation (now in claim 1), Examiner believes it would be obvious to arrive at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Syverson, for the purposes of minimizing drift error and triggering handoff to the secondary system, since Syverson performs a similar process using time periods and one of ordinary skill would recognize the association between distance traveled and time period. However, further defining the distance threshold (i.e. not related to time traveled per se) as in claim 21 would overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MARIE HOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
ANGELA M. HOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/Angela M Hoffa/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights