DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 25 August 2025 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nikou (US-2023/0019543).
Regarding claim 1: Nikou discloses a method for tracking patient features in a surgical field (figs 5A-5B, fig 8, and [0006]-[0010] of Nikou), the method comprising: capturing an image stream with a camera ([0048], and [0094] of Nikou), the image stream comprising a plurality of frames in a field of view demonstrating image features representative of the patient features of a patient anatomy ([0047]-[0048], and [0060] of Nikou – captured image frames used to register anatomical landmarks of patient anatomy); identifying a first feature set comprising a first plurality of the image features in a tracking region of the field of view of the image stream (fig 8 and [0174]-[0175] of Nikou); monitoring a relative motion among the first plurality of the image features in the image stream over time (fig 8, [0173], and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou – relative motion of probe and headset used in determining patient anatomy markers); identifying a plurality of tracking features as a second feature set comprising a second plurality of the image features by filtering at least one moving feature of the first plurality of the image features in response to the relative motion of the at least one moving feature (fig 8(28) and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou – surface collection tracks indicators/markers across images); and tracking a location and orientation of the patient anatomy among feature locations of the plurality of tracking features ([0180]-[0181] of Nikou – patient anatomy tracked according to fiducial markings to provide holographic imaging).
Regarding claim 2: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), further comprising: tracking a pose of the camera relative to the patient anatomy in response to the feature locations (fig 8 and [0172] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 3: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 2 (as rejected above), further comprising: presenting augmented display data on a display in a predetermined position or orientation relative to the patient anatomy in response to the pose of the camera (fig 8 and [0163]-[0164] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 4: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 3 (as rejected above), wherein the augmented display data is a surgical guide that aligns a surgical tool with the patient anatomy ([0047], and [0057]-[0059] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 5: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), further comprising: associating a scale of the patient features of the patient anatomy to the image features, wherein the scale is determined based on depth information captured with the image stream or a known proportion of the patient features in patient data ([0103], and [0124]-[0127] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 6: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), further comprising: monitoring the relative motion among the feature locations of the plurality of tracking features for additional moving features ([0057]-[0059], and [0066]-[0067] of Nikou – monitoring for various additional moving features to be tracked); and filtering the additional moving features from the tracking features identified in the image stream over time ([0058]-[0059] of Nikou – moving features filtered according to detected fiducial markers and other modalities, and tracked through extrapolation).
Regarding claim 7: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein at least one of the first feature set and the second feature set are identified based on a combination of two or more of the plurality of frames captured over a period of time (fig 8(22) and [0177]-[0178] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 8: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the tracking region is defined relative to a point of interest of the patient anatomy for the surgical procedure ([0056], and [0059] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 9: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 8 (as rejected above), further comprising: setting dimensions of the tracking region according to predetermined proportions relative to the point of interest of the surgical procedure (fig 8, [0124], and [0174]-[0175] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 10: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 9 (as rejected above), further comprising: adjusting the dimensions of the tracking region in response to the relative motion among the feature locations of the plurality of tracking features (fig 8(28) and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou – boundary layer 26 adjusted according to motion to produce surface collection 28).
Regarding claim 16: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the relative motion among first tracking features is determined by comparing the feature locations to corresponding image features identified in a plurality of setup images captured upon registering a pose of the camera to the patient anatomy (fig 8 and [0176] of Nikou – pose of HMD camera registered according fiducial and other markers).
Regarding claim 17: Nikou discloses a surgical visualization system (fig 1, fig 8(16), [0176] of Nikou) comprising: at least one camera (fig 8(16) and [0176] of Nikou – “HMD 16 includes at least one camera and one or more additional cameras or IR systems suitable for providing 3-D information about the environment”) configured to capture an image stream ([0048], and [0094] of Nikou), the image stream comprising a plurality of frames in a field of view demonstrating image features representative of the patient features of a patient anatomy ([0047]-[0048], and [0060] of Nikou – captured image frames used to register anatomical landmarks of patient anatomy); a display comprising a screen positioned between a user and the field of view captured by the camera ([0176] of Nikou – “HMD 16 also includes … a transparent holographic display that allows the processor to present information three-dimensionally/stereoscopically to the surgeon 12 as they look through the display at the patient 14”); and at least one controller in communication with that at least one camera and the display ([0177] of Nikou – “process 20 is performed by a processor, such as the processor in the HMD 16”), the at least one controller configured to: identify a first feature set comprising a first plurality of the image features in a tracking region of the field of view of the image stream (fig 8 and [0174]-[0175] of Nikou); monitor a relative motion among the first plurality of the image features in the image stream over time (fig 8, [0173], and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou – relative motion of probe and headset used in determining patient anatomy markers); identify a plurality of tracking features as a second feature set comprising a second plurality of the image features by filtering at least one moving feature of the first plurality of the image features in response to the relative motion of the at least one moving feature (fig 8(28) and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou – surface collection tracks indicators/markers across images); track a location and orientation of the patient anatomy among feature locations of the plurality of tracking features ([0180]-[0181] of Nikou – patient anatomy tracked according to fiducial markings to provide holographic imaging); and generate display information presented on the display in a predetermined relationship to the patient anatomy (fig 8(20) and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou).
Regarding claim 18: Nikou discloses the system according to claim 17 (as rejected above), wherein the screen is at least partially transparent, presenting the patient features therethrough (fig 8 and [0176] of Nikou – “a transparent holographic display that allows the processor to present information three-dimensionally/- stereoscopically to the surgeon 12 as they look through the display at the patient 14”).
Regarding claim 19: Nikou discloses the system according to claim 17 (as rejected above), wherein the at least one controller is further configured to: align a patient scan data of the patient features to the patient anatomy based on the location and orientation of the patient anatomy (fig 8(19,26) and [0178]-[0181] of Nikou – aligned according to HMD pose based on surface collection 28 of boundary layers 26, as well as fiducial and other markers).
Regarding claim 20: Nikou discloses the system according to claim 19 (as rejected above), wherein the display information is generated on the display in alignment with the patient anatomy relative to a viewing perspective of a viewer of the display (fig 8 and [0180]-[0182] of Nikou).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 13-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikou (US-2023/0019543) in view of Minne (US-2024/0299100).
Regarding claim 13: Nikou discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Nikou does not disclose identifying one or more of the image features defining a disruptive object, wherein the one or more of the image features is filtered from the image features from which the plurality of tracking features is identified.
Minne discloses identifying one or more of the image features defining a disruptive object, wherein the one or more of the image features is filtered from the image features from which the plurality of tracking features is identified (figs 13-14 and [0078] of Minne – filters obstructing tissue to see the blood vessels underneath).
Nikou and Minne are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D surgical imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify one or more of the image features defining a disruptive object, wherein the one or more of the image features is filtered from the image features from which the plurality of tracking features is identified, as taught by Minne. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the surgeon to clearly see the operative area of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nikou according to the relied-upon teachings of Minne to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14: Nikou in view of Minne discloses the method according to claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein the disruptive object corresponds to an unreliable tracking feature that may unexpectedly change resulting in a tracking error in the location or orientation of the patient anatomy (figs 13-14 and [0076]-[0078] of Minne). Nikou and Minne are combinable for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15: Nikou in view of Minne discloses the method according to claim 14 (as rejected above), wherein the disruptive object is one of a retractor, a drape, a soft tissue, a surgical tool, or a loose implant (figs 13-14 and [0078] of Minne – in the specific example the disruptive object is soft tissue). Nikou and Minne are combinable for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 21: Nikou discloses a method for tracking patient anatomy in a surgical field (figs 5A-5B, fig 8, and [0006]-[0010] of Nikou), the method comprising: capturing an image stream with a camera ([0048], and [0094] of Nikou), the image stream comprising a plurality of frames in a field of view demonstrating image features representative of the patient anatomy ([0047]-[0048], and [0060] of Nikou – captured image frames used to register anatomical landmarks of patient anatomy); identifying a first feature set comprising a first plurality of the image features in a tracking region of the field of view of the image stream (fig 8 and [0174]-[0175] of Nikou); identifying a plurality of tracking features as a second feature set comprising a second plurality of the image features by filtering the image features of the first plurality of the image features (fig 8(28) and [0178]-[0179] of Nikou – surface collection tracks indicators/markers across images); and tracking a location or orientation of the patient anatomy based on the plurality of tracking features ([0180]-[0181] of Nikou – patient anatomy tracked according to fiducial markings to provide holographic imaging).
Nikou does not disclose identifying one or more of the image features defining a disruptive object, wherein the disruptive object is identified as a predetermined object or class of objects that change in position or form relative to the patient anatomy over time; filtering the image features of the disruptive object from the first plurality of the image features.
Minne discloses identifying one or more of the image features defining a disruptive object, wherein the disruptive object is identified as a predetermined object or class of objects that change in position or form relative to the patient anatomy over time; and filtering the image features of the disruptive object from the first plurality of the image features (figs 13-14 and [0078] of Minne – filters obstructing tissue to see the blood vessels underneath).
Nikou and Minne are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D surgical imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify one or more of the image features defining a disruptive object, wherein the disruptive object is identified as a predetermined object or class of objects that change in position or form relative to the patient anatomy over time; and filtering the image features of the disruptive object from the first plurality of the image features, as taught by Minne. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the surgeon to clearly see the operative area of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nikou according to the relied-upon teachings of Minne to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 11 recites the “method according to claim 10, wherein the dimension of the tracking region are at least one of: increased in response to the relative motion among the feature locations being located outside a boundary of the tracking region; and decreased in response to the relative motion among the feature locations being located inside a boundary of the tracking region.” Examiner has not discovered this particularly recited invention, which further limits and includes by dependency all the limitations expressly recited in claims 1, 8, 9 and 10. The closest prior art discovered is the combination of Nikou (US-2023/0019543), Minne (US-2024/0299100), Amoit (US-2018/0235715 – which teaches, among other things, adjusting field-of-view for operative regions in computer-assisted surgery), and Shahadi (US-2007/0225553 – which teaches, among other things, interoperative targeting of regions for enhanced viewing). However, none of the prior art cited above, nor any other prior art discovered by Examiner, fully teaches claim 11, either singly or in an obvious combination. Therefore, claim 11 distinguishes over the prior art.
Claim 12 recites the “method according to claim 10, wherein the dimensions of the tracking region are decreased along a perimeter of the tracking region in response to the relative motion among the feature locations located along the perimeter.” Examiner has not discovered this particularly recited invention, which further limits and includes by dependency all the limitations expressly recited in claims 1, 8, 9 and 10. The closest prior art discovered is the combination of Nikou (US-2023/0019543), Minne (US-2024/0299100), Amoit (US-2018/0235715), and Shahadi (US-2007/0225553). However, none of the prior art cited above, nor any other prior art discovered by Examiner, fully teaches claim 12, either singly or in an obvious combination. Therefore, claim 12 distinguishes over the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615