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 Group II (Claims 12-20) are hereby withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 2, a word is missing: “wherein the sensor”. 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 1-11 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, “a first position” is confusing because it is not linked to any object. Should this read “a first position of the sensor”?
In Claim 8, “a distance” is undefined with respect to a frame of reference. Distance from what?
Further in claim 8, “one of the first position” is not understood and seems to lack antecedent basis. Is this meant to refer to “the plurality of positions” from claim 7?
Additionally in claim 8, “a secondary position” is undefined with respect to a frame of reference. During examination, it is assumed to be a position relative to the registration position and determined by a secondary tracking system.
In Claim 11, “a pose of the sensor” is undefined with respect to a frame of reference. Is this with respect to the registration 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, “an initial pose of the sensor” is undefined with respect to a frame of reference. Is this meant to be the same as “the first position” from claim 1?
Claims 2-7, 9-10 are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180199999 to Syverson.
Regarding Claim 1, Syverson teaches a tracking system comprising:
a sensor (sensors 403, 405, Figure 4) generating inertial signals (accelerometer 403, gyroscope 405, par. 0066); and
a controller in communication with the sensor (computer 113, Figure 4), said controller determining a first position [of the sensor] based on the inertial signals relative to a registration position (with respect to an initial frame of reference including known starting orientation, known starting velocity, and known starting position, par. 0066-0067).
Regarding Claim 2, Syverson further teaches wherein the sensor is coupled to an object; wherein the object is configured to move from a first position to a second position (the sensor is coupled to object 204, Figure 4 of which moves as it is used during surgery).
Regarding Claim 3, Syverson further teaches wherein the inertial signals include accelerometer signals (accelerometer 403, par. 0066) and gyroscope signals (gyroscope 405, par. 0066) and the controller determines a trajectory based on at least one of the accelerometer signals or the gyroscope signals (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 sensor communicates with the controller via at least one of a wire or wirelessly (wire or wireless link, par. 0067).
Regarding Claim 7, Syverson further teaches wherein the controller determines a plurality of positions, each of the plurality of positions based on a previous position except the registration position (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).
Regarding Claim 8, Syverson further teaches wherein the controller compares the first position to a distance threshold, when one of the first position is greater than the distance threshold, using a secondary position from a secondary tracking system (when low accuracy is detected, a secondary tracking system is used for a position state update, in particular position variance (implicitly includes distance) is compared to a threshold to determine the accuracy, par. 0071-0072).
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 sensor after a segment based on at least the inertial signals relative to an initial pose of the sensor (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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20250152265 to Lu teaches gyroscope and accelerometer-based tracking system. US 20220249180, US 12295678 to Redmond teach IMU tracking systems (e.g. Figure 5). US 20190143506, 20220080589, 11173597, 11712798, 20190143513, 20220080591, 20230286147, 20250144794, 11161243, 11679499, 12194635 to Rabindran teach surgical navigation system with gyroscope, accelerometer and redundant tracking systems. US 20210045815, 20240090954, 10828112, 11877808 to Syverson teaches surgical navigation system with gyroscope, accelerometer and redundant tracking (e.g. Figure 4) and read on all claims.
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