DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings received on 18 March 2024 are accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract recites phrases which can be implied. Examiner suggests amending the abstract to recite:
A method of determining a position of an object in a virtual environment and for assessing a performance in the movement of said object. Preferred embodiments provide an improved endoscope simulator and means for assessing performance in the use of an endoscope.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 7:
a haptic means may be modified to provide a desired force feedback… (Spec. ¶115 “available haptic means may be modified to provide the desired force feedback. Thus, motors, braking.” and Spec. ¶130 “force feedback may be effected by restricting rotation of the rollers.”) Motors, brakes, and rollers are corresponding structure.
Claim 13:
non-visually identifiable means to assist in detecting movement of the tube (Specification ¶88 “non-visually identifiable means may be used. For example, one or more conductive wires may extend through the tube with sensors.)
Each “means” is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 recites “a haptic means may be modified to provide a desired force feedback.” The phrase "may be" is renders the following recitation optional. However, this is the only limitation found in claim 7 making it unclear whether claim 7 does, or does not require a haptic means to actually provide force feedback. Examiner suggests striking “
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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.
Claim 1-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2011/0014596 A1 Kurenov, et al. (cited in IDS dated 18 March 2024) [herein “Kurenov”] in view of US patent 6,929,481 B1 Alexander, et al. (cited in IDS dated 18 March 2024) [herein “Alexander”], US patent 6,610,007 B2 Belson et al. (cited in IDS dated 18 March 2024) [herein “Belson”], and WO 2009/008750 A1 Baker (cited in IDS dated 18 March 2024) [herein “Baker”].
Claim 1 recites “1. An apparatus for use in determining a position and/or orientation of an object in a virtual environment for simulating the path of an endoscope in a human or animal passageway or cavity.” From the above list of alternatives examiner is selecting “position.”
Kurenov title discloses “IMPLEMENTING ENDOSCOPIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTS WITHIN A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT.” Kurenov paragraph 114 discloses “information from the haptic device can be used to update the position of the virtual surgical instrument within the virtual scene.”
Kurenov paragraph 122 last sentence further discloses “an orientation of the simulated instrument is also provided which can indicate the angle and rotational orientation of the instrument.”
Kurenov paragraph 8 last sentence discloses “a computer program and associated algorithms during training to ascertain their proficiency and readiness to utilize the instrument and/or technique on a patient.” A patient corresponds with a human or animal. Kurenov paragraph 32 discloses “a virtual model of a human stomach.”
Claim 1 further recites “the apparatus comprising: a handset; a tube coupleable to or slideably engageable with the handset; at least one sensor for detecting movement of the tube.” Kurenov paragraph 61 last line discloses “the sensors which can be designed to sense the operation of the controls.” Kurenov paragraph 54 discloses “an actual surgical instrument handle.” A handle corresponds with a handset.
But Kurenov does not explicitly disclose a tube coupled to the handset; however, in analogous art of endoscope procedures, Alexander column 8 lines 49-51 teaches “Endoscope 22 typically includes a handle 21, working channel 15, working channel tool 23, thumb lever 19 and switches 18.” The endoscope corresponds with a handset. Alexander column 9 lines 24-25 teaches “Endoscope 22 includes a navigation tube 49.” The navigation tube corresponds with a tube coupled with the handset.
Alexander column 10 lines 57-60 teaches “Referring back to FIG. 3, the distal end of inner tube 56 is connected to a trolley assembly 46 that enables measurement of translational and rotational motion of navigation tube 49 via sensed motion of inner tube 56.” Sensed motion and measurement of motion of the tube correspond with at least one sensor for detecting movement of the tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kurenov and Alexander. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the endoscope interface for medical simulation into the system of implementing endoscopic surgical procedures within a virtual environment for the purpose “to provide an enhanced realistic simulation of that procedure.” See Alexander column 1 lines 42-43.
Claim 1 further recites “and a transmitter for transmitting data relating to the detected movement to an engine with a memory storing encoded instructions and a processor.” Kurenov paragraph 57 disclose “The controls engender the operation of the simulated instrument. Sensors, such as those discussed in relation to FIGS. 4, 5, 9, and 12, can be attached to the handle to sense the operation of the controls. The sensors can then communicate this information.”
Furthermore, regarding the particular handset of Alexander column 8 lines 64-67 teaches “Communications interface 24 transfers the manipulation and force feedback signals between computer system 25, interface device 20 and endoscope 22.” The communication interface corresponds with a transmitter.
Alexander column 8 lines 32-34 teaches “Computer system preferably includes a monitor 28, base 26 (e.g., including processor(s), memories and accompanying hardware).” The computer system corresponds with an engine with memory, processor, and encoded instructions.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the encoded instructions, when executed by the processor: determines a position and/or orientation of the object in the virtual environment.” Alexander column 11 lines 27-29 teaches “Computer system 25 processes the pulse counts to enable simulation of navigation tube rotation and translation.”
Claim 1 further recites “represents the object as a plurality of segments.” Kurenov paragraph 126 discloses:
collision detection can be implemented using various techniques well known in the art. For example, the use of "bounding volumes" is known to those with skill in the art of computer graphics as a method of collision detection within virtual environments. With this technique, all of the points that define the shape of a virtual object are defined within one or more bounding volume shapes, such as, for example, a sphere, cylinder, ellipsoid, capsule, box, or other convex shape capable of containing all the points and the axes there between of a virtual object.
The bounding volumes of the virtual object are a representation of the object as a plurality of segments. The bounding volumes are segments.
Claim 1 further recites “receives input signals, said input signals based at least in part on commands of a user from the handset indicative of a desired motion of the object.” Kurenov paragraph 114 discloses “information from the haptic device can be used to update the position of the virtual surgical instrument within the virtual scene.” The information from the haptic device are commands of a user indicative of a desired motion of the virtual surgical instrument.
Claim 1 further recites “and determines a movement of the object in the virtual environment in response to the input signals, said movement determination including: determining a movement of at least a subset of the segments in response to the input signals.” Kurenov paragraph 114 discloses “information from the haptic device can be used to update the position of the virtual surgical instrument within the virtual scene.” Updating the position is determining a movement of the virtual surgical instrument.
Claim 1 further recites “detecting whether any of the segments of the subset impact a wall of the virtual environment.” Kurenov paragraph 126 discloses “collision detection can be implemented using various techniques well known in the art. For example, the use of ‘bounding volumes’.” Kurenov paragraph 123 discloses “the method checks for collisions between the simulated instrument and the other objects in the virtual scene.” Kurenov paragraph 120 discloses “such other objects can include human or other animal tissue, other instruments, surgical thread, and exercise rings or any other apparatus.” A collision detected between the simulated instrument and human tissue is detecting that a subset (the bounding volumes of the simulated instrument) impact a wall of the virtual environment. The human tissue virtual object is a wall of the virtual environment.
Claim 1 further recites “and if so, determining a direction of motion of a said segment(s) following the impact by combining data representing each wall being impacted and resolving to determine an escape direction for the segment(s).” Kurenov paragraph 124 discloses:
If a collision is detected, …, mechanics formulas are employed to calculate or approximate the effect of the collision which can include yet another new location for the simulated instrument and other objects in the scene.
Determining a new location for the simulated instrument is determining a direction of motion of a segment following the impact. The new location of the simulated instrument is the escape direction. The bounding volume of the simulated instrument is said segment.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein said movement of the object is translated into the addition or subtraction of one or more segments at a tip thereof to determine a user's desired path.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “the addition.”
Kurenov does not explicitly disclose said movement is translated into an addition or subtraction of a segment from the tip; however, in analogous art of endoscope procedures, Belson figure 7 and col. 7 lines 28-41 teaches:
When the endoscope body 102 is advanced distally by one unit, section 1 moves into the position marked l', section 2 moves into the position previously occupied by section 1, section 3 moves into the position previously occupied by section 2, etc. …, each time the endoscope body 102 advances one unit, each section in the automatically controlled proximal portion 106 is signaled to assume the shape of the section that previously occupied the space that it is now in.
The endoscope advancing by one unit adds a 1’ unit. A unit of the endoscope is a segment. Assuming the shape of the previous section is translating the motion into an addition of a segment at the tip thereof. Advancing distally by one unit is an addition of one or more segments at a tip to determine a user’s path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kurenov, Alexander, and Belson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use incorporate the serpentine motion of an endoscope body into the system of implementing endoscopic surgical procedures within a virtual environment for the purpose of incorporating a steerable segmented endoscope and to allow negotiation of tortuous curves along a desired endoscope path. See Belson title and abstract.
Claim 1 further recites “and assessing the performance of a user manipulating the object in the virtual environment by comparing a measure of variance of: the user's desired path from one or more preferred paths through the virtual environment; and/or one or more parameters associated with the user's desired path from one or more parameters associated with the preferred path.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “the user's desired path from one or more preferred paths through the virtual environment.”
Kurenov paragraph 56 last sentence disclose “provide training and assessment tools for assessing a user's skill with a particular surgical instrument.” Kurenov paragraph 128 is preceded with a section heading “III. Training and Assessment Tools.” Kurenov paragraph 140 disclose “the path or routes the instrument(s) take during a training exercise can be recorded …. The routes could then be visually compared to those of an expert user or instructor or evaluated directly by such an expert.”
But Kurenov and Belson does not explicitly disclose measuring a variance; however, in analogous art of simulating endoscopy procedures, Baker page 16 lines 3-4 teach “an ideal path may be plotted on the image to enable presentation and measurement of the deviation therefrom.” Measuring a deviation from an ideal path is measuring a variance of the user’s path from a preferred path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kurenov, Alexander, Belson, and Baker. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use measuring deviation from preferred path into the system of virtual environment endoscopic surgical procedures for the advantageous purpose of comparing multiple attempts at a procedure. See Baker page 16 lines 1-4.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The apparatus of claim 1, including an aperture for receiving the tube.” Kurenov does not explicitly disclose a tube coupled to the handset; however, in analogous art of endoscope procedures, Alexander column 8 lines 49-51 teaches “Endoscope 22 typically includes a handle 21, working channel 15, working channel tool 23, thumb lever 19 and switches 18.” The endoscope corresponds with a handset. Alexander column 9 lines 24-25 teaches “Endoscope 22 includes a navigation tube 49.” The navigation tube corresponds with a tube coupled with the handset.
Alexander column 8 lines 47-49 teach “Interface device 20 includes at least one orifice, such as a simulated nostril, throat, anus, or puncture (as by trocar) etc., for receiving actual or mock endoscope 22.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kurenov and Alexander. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the endoscope interface for medical simulation into the system of implementing endoscopic surgical procedures within a virtual environment for the purpose “to provide an enhanced realistic simulation of that procedure.” See Alexander column 1 lines 42-43.
Claim 3 further recites “3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect translational movement and/or rotational movement of the tube.” Kurenov does not explicitly disclose a tube coupled to the handset; however, in analogous art of endoscope procedures, Alexander column 8 lines 49-51 teaches “Endoscope 22 typically includes a handle 21, working channel 15, working channel tool 23, thumb lever 19 and switches 18.” The endoscope corresponds with a handset. Alexander column 9 lines 24-25 teaches “Endoscope 22 includes a navigation tube 49.” The navigation tube corresponds with a tube coupled with the handset.
Alexander column 10 lines 57-60 disclose “Referring back to FIG. 3, the distal end of inner tube 56 is connected to a trolley assembly 46 that enables measurement of translational and rotational motion of navigation tube 49 via sensed motion of inner tube 56.” Sensed motion and measurement of motion of the tube correspond with at least one sensor for detecting movement of the tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kurenov and Alexander. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the endoscope interface for medical simulation into the system of implementing endoscopic surgical procedures within a virtual environment for the purpose “to provide an enhanced realistic simulation of that procedure.” See Alexander column 1 lines 42-43.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the handset includes an actuator, whereby actuation of the actuator causes control signals to be generated.” Alexander column 8 lines 49-51 teaches “Endoscope 22 typically includes a handle 21, working channel 15, working channel tool 23, thumb lever 19 and switches 18.” The endoscope corresponds with a handset. Alexander column 9 lines 24-25 teaches “Endoscope 22 includes a navigation tube 49.” The navigation tube corresponds with a tube coupled with the handset. Thumb lever is an actuator.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the actuator is a lever.” Alexander column 8 lines 49-51 teaches “Endoscope 22 typically includes a handle 21, working channel 15, working channel tool 23, thumb lever 19 and switches 18.” The endoscope corresponds with a handset. Alexander column 9 lines 24-25 teaches “Endoscope 22 includes a navigation tube 49.” The navigation tube corresponds with a tube coupled with the handset. Thumb lever is a lever.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the handset comprises two or more actuators.” Alexander column 8 lines 49-51 teaches “Endoscope 22 typically includes a handle 21, working channel 15, working channel tool 23, thumb lever 19 and switches 18.” The endoscope corresponds with a handset. Alexander column 9 lines 24-25 teaches “Endoscope 22 includes a navigation tube 49.” The navigation tube corresponds with a tube coupled with the handset. Thumb lever and switches are two or more actuators.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein a haptic means may be modified to provide a desired force feedback to the user.” Kurenov paragraph 58 lines 8-11 disclose “Desktop model force feedback haptic devices are well-known in the art and there are several commercially available models that can be utilized with the subject invention.” Kurenov paragraph 111 disclose “To accurately simulate a surgical technique or procedure, it can be helpful for the tactile feedback to be transmitted to the instrument handle in ‘real-time.’” Transmitting tactile feedback to the instrument handle corresponds with providing a desired force feedback to a user.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the haptic means is provided in the handset.” Kurenov paragraph 58 lines 8-11 disclose “Desktop model force feedback haptic devices are well-known in the art and there are several commercially available models that can be utilized with the subject invention.” Kurenov paragraph 111 disclose “To accurately simulate a surgical technique or procedure, it can be helpful for the tactile feedback to be transmitted to the instrument handle in ‘real-time.’” Transmitting tactile feedback to the instrument handle corresponds with providing a desired force feedback to a user via the handset.
Claim 9 further recites “9. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the haptic means comprises motor means and/or braking means for limiting and/or reversing movement of the tube.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “motor means.”
Alexander column 3 lines 53-55 teach “The forces and torques are typically generated by four servomotors that manipulate the member to provide a realistic feel during simulation.” Servomotors are motors.
Claim 10 further recites “10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein handset and/or the tube have structural properties similar to that of a genuine handset and/or tube for an endoscope.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “handset.”
Kurenov paragraph 54 discloses “an actual surgical instrument handle.” An actual surgical instrument handle corresponds with a handset with structural properties similar to a genuine handset.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tube is resistant to torque or twist.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “torque.”
Kurenov does not explicitly disclose a tube coupled to the handset; however, in analogous art of endoscope procedures, Alexander column 23 lines 5-7 teach “In order to enable automatic capture and release of instruments, the interface device may further include an automatic capture and release mechanism.”
Alexander column 24 lines 11-13 teach “Stop pin 838 is disposed proximally of pivot pin 826 to limit rotation of rocker 824 as described below.” Alexander column 24 lines 54-61 teach:
Stop pin 838 limits rotation of rocker 824 when the rocker rotates sufficiently to enable section 842 to be positioned proximate the distal side of traveler 810. The spring bias of lever extension 583 pivots the lever to capture the new instrument (FIG. 17a) as described above. Thus, the mechanism enables insertion or changing of instruments during a simulated procedure in a realistic manner without requiring manual pivoting of lever extension 583.
Capturing the instrument corresponds with resisting torque. Furthermore, the stop pin limiting rotation of the rocker of the capture mechanism corresponds with the capture mechanism imparting at least some resistance to torque on the tube of the instrument.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Kurenov and Alexander. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it motivated to use the capture and release mechanism into the system of implementing endoscopic surgical procedures within a virtual environment for the purpose “enables insertion or changing of instruments during a simulated procedure in a realistic manner without requiring manual pivoting of lever extension 583.” See Alexander column 24 lines 58-61.
Claim 12 further recites “12. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the tube comprises one or more markings to assist in detecting movement of the tube and/or avoiding undetected movement of the tube.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “assist in detecting movement of the tube.”
Alexander column 20 lines 50-51 teach “encoder sensor 558 senses marks on the disk to measure rotation of the disk and the catheter.” Sensing marks to measure rotation corresponds with marks to assist in detecting movement.
Claim 13 further recites “13. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the tube comprises one or more non-visually identifiable means to assist in detecting movement of the tube and/or avoiding undetected movement of the tube.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “assist in detecting movement of the tube.”
Alexander column 22 lines 6-9 teach “configuration 722 includes a plurality of carriage assemblies and corresponding bellows, belts, pulleys and actuators to measure manipulation of nested instruments, such as the wire, catheter and sheath assembly.” Belts pulleys and actuators are non-visual means to detect movement of the tube. The wire is one or more conductive wires in the tube.
Claim 14 further recites “14. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more non-visually identifiable means are one or more conductive wires which extend through the tube.” Alexander column 22 lines 6-9 teach “configuration 722 includes a plurality of carriage assemblies and corresponding bellows, belts, pulleys and actuators to measure manipulation of nested instruments, such as the wire, catheter and sheath assembly.” Belts pulleys and actuators are non-visual means to detect movement of the tube. The wire is one or more conductive wires in the tube.
Claim 15 further recites “15. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a display to display images of the virtual environment and object therein.” Kurenov paragraph 121 lines 1-2 disclose “The 3D scene is then rendered based on the information provided and can be displayed on an output device.” Rendering a 3D scene is generating data using 3D modeling software. Kurenov paragraph 105 line 5 further discloses “Autodesk® 3ds Max®.”
Claim 16 further recites “16. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters associated with the user's desired path and/or the preferred path comprises any one or more of: a speed of movement; a speed immediately prior to a collision; a length of time to insert and/or remove the object; and information generated by the engine regarding collisions.” From the above lists of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “a length of time to insert and/or remove the object.”
Kurenov paragraph 135 disclose:
Time is another important metric which can be utilized in various ways to assess the level of proficiency of a user. …. Or the total amount of time taken to complete the entire procedure can be calculated.
A total amount of time taken to complete the entire procedure corresponds with a time to insert and remove the object.
Furthermore, Kurenov paragraph 124 disclose:
At a step 321, information about the collision is recorded in the computer's memory. Such information can include the time of the collision, the identity of the objects which collided, among other information. Such information can later be used to assess the operation of the simulated instrument as discussed further below.
Recording collision information to assess the operation corresponds with information generated regarding collisions.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,806,696 B2 Alexander; David et al.
teaches
Interface device and method for interfacing instruments to medical procedure simulation systems
Körner, O. & Männer, R. "Implementation of a Haptic Interface for a Virtual Reality Simulator for Flexible Endoscopy" IEEE 11th Symp. on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Env. & Teleoperator Sys. (2003)
Haptic force feedback interface for a virtual reality simulator for flexible endoscopy
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 10 January 2026