DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,986,969. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the presently pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 requires the at least two optical devices integral with the frame to acquire images from a distance between 20 cm and 4 m. The specification, at the third paragraph on page 14, only provides support for the range from 30 cm to 4 m.
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.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) in view of Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”).
Vaughan teaches:
Re claim 1. A robot device ensuring an automatic guiding of a robotic arm, the robot device comprising:
a frame holding a robotic arm articulated along a plurality of axes of freedom (gantry 13 holding articulated arm 23, Figure 4A; and paragraph [0068]), said robotic arm comprising a distal operator device for generating a human-machine interaction (ultrasound transducer 29, Figure 4A),
an image acquisition system comprising at least two optical devices integral with said frame and arranged around the robotic arm and in at least two distinct positions of the frame, the image acquisition system being configured to reconstruct a surface of the human body of said patient (cameras 15, Figure 1; and articulated arm 23, Fig. 4A, both attached to gantry 13; paragraphs [0063, 0086 and 0088]: “The 3D coordinate obtaining module (702) of the imaging computing device (700) then obtains (804) a plurality of 3D coordinates of a surface of the tissue being imaged, presently the breasts (9, 11) of the patient (5), by means of the 3D scanner of the imaging assembly (1), in the above example an array of cameras (13).”), and
a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient and a guiding trajectory referenced to the surface of said human body model, wherein movements of said robotic arm are enslaved to said guiding trajectory (paragraphs [0063, 0086, and 0088]; and Steps 804 and 810, Figure 8), the calculation unit generating for each of the at least two optical devices a plurality of point clouds (paragraph [0094]: “the 3D scanner may comprise any suitable non-contact 3D scanning technology, such as a laser based time-of-flight 3D scanner, to name but one exemplary 3D scanning technology.”).
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 1) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices, and a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images, the calculation unit generating for each of the at least two optical devices a plurality of point clouds.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0063], using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras 15 to determine the shape of a surface of a patient. Vaughan further teaches, at paragraph [0094], the 3D scanner may comprise any suitable non-contact 3D scanning technology, such as a laser based time-of-flight 3D scanner.
Zhang teaches, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. Zhang further teaches, at section 5.4, 3D shape measurements may be based on time-of-flight techniques, or laser range scanning techniques, both of which produce point clouds. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
In view of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 1) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices, and a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images, the calculation unit generating for each of the at least two optical devices a plurality of point clouds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Vaughan teaches using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of laser based time-of-flight 3D cameras to determine the shape of a patient; and Zhang teaches each camera may acquire a 3D image; and using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 17) wherein the calculation unit further generates a global point cloud from the plurality of point clouds.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0063], using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras 15 to determine the shape of a surface of a patient. Vaughan further teaches, at paragraph [0094], the 3D scanner may comprise any suitable non-contact 3D scanning technology, such as a laser based time-of-flight 3D scanner.
Zhang teaches, at the abstract, achieving simultaneous 3D absolute shape acquisition, reconstruction, and display at a speed of 30 frames/s with 300K points per frame, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. Zhang further teaches, at section 5.4, 3D shape measurements may be based on time-of-flight techniques, or laser range scanning techniques, both of which produce point clouds. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
In view of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 17) wherein the calculation unit further generates a global point cloud from the plurality of point clouds, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0063], using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras 15 to determine the shape of a surface of a patient. Vaughan further teaches, at paragraph [0094], the 3D scanner may comprise any suitable non-contact 3D scanning technology, such as a laser based time-of-flight 3D scanner. Zhang teaches, at the abstract, achieving simultaneous 3D absolute shape acquisition, reconstruction, and display at a speed of 30 frames/s with 300K points per frame, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. Zhang further teaches, at section 5.4, 3D shape measurements may be based on time-of-flight techniques, or laser range scanning techniques, both of which produce point clouds. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
Vaughan teaches:
Re claim 20. A robot device ensuring an automatic guiding of a robotic arm, the robot device comprising:
- a frame holding a robotic arm articulated along a plurality of axes of freedom (gantry 13 holding articulated arm 23, Figure 4A), said robotic arm comprising a distal operator device for generating a human-machine interaction (ultrasound transducer 29, Figure 4A);
- an image acquisition system comprising at least two optical devices integral with said frame and arranged in at least two distinct positions of the frame (cameras 15 attached to gantry 13, Figure 1; paragraphs [0063, 0086 and 0088]: “The 3D coordinate obtaining module (702) of the imaging computing device (700) then obtains (804) a plurality of 3D coordinates of a surface of the tissue being imaged, presently the breasts (9, 11) of the patient (5), by means of the 3D scanner of the imaging assembly (1), in the above example an array of cameras (13).”), and;
- a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient and a guiding trajectory referenced to a surface of said human body model, wherein movements of said robotic arm are enslaved to said guiding trajectory (paragraphs [0063, 0086, and 0088]; and Steps 804 and 810, Figure 8) and the guiding is performed at a distance of less than 20 cm from the surface of said patient (Fig. 4A, and paragraph [0069]: “The arm (23) is operable to automatically move the ultrasound transducer (29) along a path defined by the obtained 3D coordinates for ultrasound imaging of the breasts (9, 11). The arm (23) is further operable to maintain the ultrasound transducer (29) in contact with the surface of the relevant breast (9, 11) at a predetermined orientation.”).
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 20) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices; and a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0063], using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras 15 to determine the shape of a surface of a patient. Vaughan further teaches, at paragraph [0094], the 3D scanner may comprise any suitable non-contact 3D scanning technology, such as a laser based time-of-flight 3D scanner.
Zhang teaches, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. Zhang further teaches, at section 5.4, 3D shape measurements may be based on time-of-flight techniques, or laser range scanning techniques, both of which produce point clouds. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
In view of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 20) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices; and a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Vaughan teaches using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of laser based time-of-flight 3D cameras to determine the shape of a patient; and Zhang teaches each camera may acquire a 3D image; and using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
Claims 2-4 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campmol Ametller et al. (US Publication No 2022/0202353).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 2) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device; (re claim 3) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said second distal operator device comprising two local optics and a millimetric or bidirectional removal microscopic optic; and (re claim 4) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two local optics and a Dermatoscope optical device.
Campmol Ametller teaches, at paragraphs [0038 and 0040], such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions. The system may include the dermatoscopic camera 23 and two stereoscopic cameras 21, 22 as illustrated in Fig. 2.
In view of Campmol Ametller’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 2) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device; (re claim 3) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said second distal operator device comprising two local optics and a millimetric or bidirectional removal microscopic optic; and (re claim 4) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said distal operator device comprising two local optics and a Dermatoscope optical device, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Campmol Ametller teaches such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions.
Vaughan teaches:
Re claim 18. A robot device ensuring an automatic guiding of a robotic arm, the robot device comprising:
- a frame holding a robotic arm articulated along a plurality of axes of freedom (gantry 13 holding articulated arm 23, Figure 4A), said robotic arm comprising a distal operator device for generating a human-machine interaction (ultrasound transducer 29, Figure 4A),
- an image acquisition system comprising at least two optical devices integral with said frame and arranged in at least two distinct positions of the frame, and the optical devices integral with the frame being different from the distal operator device optics (cameras 15, Figure 1; paragraphs [0063, 0086 and 0088]: “The 3D coordinate obtaining module (702) of the imaging computing device (700) then obtains (804) a plurality of 3D coordinates of a surface of the tissue being imaged, presently the breasts (9, 11) of the patient (5), by means of the 3D scanner of the imaging assembly (1), in the above example an array of cameras (13).”), and,
- a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images and a guiding trajectory referenced to a surface of said human body model, wherein movements of said robotic arm are enslaved to said guiding trajectory (paragraphs [0063, 0086, and 0088]; and Steps 804 and 810, Figure 8).
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18) said distal operator device comprising optics.
Campmol Ametller teaches, at paragraphs [0038 and 0040], such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions.
In view of Campmol Ametller’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 18) said distal operator device comprising optics, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Campmol Ametller teaches such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions.
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices; a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0063], using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of cameras 15 to determine the shape of a surface of a patient. Vaughan further teaches, at paragraph [0094], the 3D scanner may comprise any suitable non-contact 3D scanning technology, such as a laser based time-of-flight 3D scanner.
Zhang teaches, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. Zhang further teaches, at section 5.4, 3D shape measurements may be based on time-of-flight techniques, or laser range scanning techniques, both of which produce point clouds. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
In view of Zhang’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the device as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 18) each optical device being configured to acquire a 3D image, the image acquisition system being configured to acquire a plurality of 3D images of a human body of a patient from the at least two optical devices; a calculation unit for generating in real time a human body model of said patient from said acquired 3D images, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Vaughan teaches using the 3D shape acquisition technique of Zhang with a plurality of laser based time-of-flight 3D cameras to determine the shape of a patient; and Zhang teaches each camera may acquire a 3D image; and using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range. This allows capturing a greater area while generating a 3D model in real-time.
Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 19) wherein the optical devices integral with the frame being defined by a first resolution, and the distal operator device optics being defined by a second resolution, and the first and second resolution being different.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraph [0094], laser based time-of-flight 3D scanners attached to the gantry for determining the surface of a patient. Such 3D scanners are relatively low resolution.
Campmol Ametller teaches, at paragraphs [0007, 0038 and 0040], such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions, which requires high-resolution cameras to obtain a detailed image of a patient’s skin.
In view of Campmol Ametller’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 19) wherein the optical devices integral with the frame being defined by a first resolution, and the distal operator device optics being defined by a second resolution, and the first and second resolution being different, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Campmol Ametller teaches such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions, which requires high-resolution cameras to obtain a detailed image of a patient’s skin. Vaughan teaches laser based time-of-flight 3D scanners attached to the gantry for determining the surface of a patient. Such 3D scanners are relatively low resolution. Laser scanners have a different purpose and a different resolution from dermatoscopic cameras, each resolution is suitable for the purpose of each imaging modality.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fedyukov et al. (US Publication No 2021/0049811).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) wherein said calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images; and (re claim 6) wherein said a calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images, wherein the training of said trained network is performed from a parametric model of said human body defined by parameters of shapes and rotations of articulations.
Fedyukov teaches, at paragraphs [0152 and 0170], using a neural network to output a parametric model of a human body based on depth maps. Such a method of outputting a model of a human body may be applied to the apparatus of Vaughan with a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling the shape of the human.
In view of Fedyukov’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 5) wherein said calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images; and (re claim 6) wherein said a calculation unit for generating in real time said human body model of said patient is configured to generate said human body model by means of a trained neural network configured to receive as input depth maps computed from said acquired 3D images, wherein the training of said trained network is performed from a parametric model of said human body defined by parameters of shapes and rotations of articulations, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Fedyukov teaches using a neural network to output a parametric model of a human body based on depth maps. Such a method of outputting a model of a human body may be applied to the apparatus of Vaughan with a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling the shape of the human.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) and Fedyukov et al. (US Publication No 2021/0049811) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Campmol Ametller et al. (US Publication No 2022/0202353) and Krieger et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0194117).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 10) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said second distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device configured to acquire dermatoscopic images, said dermatoscopic images being indexed to the surface of said parametric model; (re claim 11) wherein the generated human body model comprises a meshing of points, and wherein said dermatoscopic images are indexed with at least one node or mesh of the meshing of the generated human body model; and (re claim 12) wherein the robot device is configured to implement self-calibration of said dermatoscope optical device of said distal operator device with respect to a referential associated with the at least two optical devices of the acquisition system.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraphs [0082-0083], imaging a patient using different techniques, and geometrically co-registering the different imaging modalities to so that the different imaging modalities may have a common coordinate system.
Campmol Ametller teaches, at paragraphs [0038 and 0040], such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions.
Krieger teaches, at the abstract and Fig. 4B, acquiring a 3D scan of a patient and determining landmarks for localizing and positioning an ultrasound probe in relation to these specific coordinates within the 3D scan. Krieger further teaches, at paragraph [0195], the system can be used in dermatology applications. This allows for quickly positioning a medical probe on a patient in relation to a coordinate system of the patient determined from a 3D scan of the patient such that the medical probe can scan a known area of the patient.
In view of Krieger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan and Campmol Ametller, (re claim 10) wherein said robotic arm comprises a second distal operator device arranged at the end of said robotic arm, said second distal operator device comprising a dermatoscope optical device configured to acquire dermatoscopic images, said dermatoscopic images being indexed to the surface of said parametric model; (re claim 11) wherein the generated human body model comprises a meshing of points, and wherein said dermatoscopic images are indexed with at least one node or mesh of the meshing of the generated human body model; and (re claim 12) wherein the robot device is configured to implement self-calibration of said dermatoscope optical device of said distal operator device with respect to a referential associated with the at least two optical devices of the acquisition system, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Vaughan teaches imaging a patient using different techniques, and geometrically co-registering the different imaging modalities to so that the different imaging modalities may have a common coordinate system. Campmol Ametller teaches such robotic arms for scanning patients may have a dermatoscopic camera attached thereto to check skin lesions; and Krieger teaches acquiring a 3D scan of a patient and determining landmarks for localizing and positioning an ultrasound probe in relation to these specific coordinates within the 3D scan. The system of Krieger can be used in dermatology applications. This allows for quickly positioning a medical probe on a patient in relation to a coordinate system of the patient determined from a 3D scan of the patient such that the medical probe can scan a known area of the patient.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hulford et al. (US Publication No 2020/0253678).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 13) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the image acquisition system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; and said base comprises a counterweight, a plurality of casters, and at least one operable brake to stabilize said robot device at a fixed position.
Hulford teaches, at Figs. 2B, 2C and paragraphs [0114 and 0141], such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base 202 with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; and such bases may provide a counterweight to increase the robotic arm’s reach over an operating table.
In view of Hulford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 13) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the image acquisition system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; and said base comprises a counterweight, a plurality of casters, and at least one operable brake to stabilize said robot device at a fixed position, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hulford teaches such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; and such bases may provide a counterweight to increase the robotic arm’s reach over an operating table.
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 14) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the image acquisition system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; and said frame comprises means for pivoting the main body with respect to the base and a means for blocking the pivoting of said main body so as to orientate said main body with respect to the base at a desired angle.
Hulford teaches, at Figs. 2B, 2C and paragraph [0114], such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base 202 with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; Hulford further teaches, at Fig 2A and paragraph [0127], joint 236 provides an pivoting interface between the column 210 and the robotic arm 204; and at paragraph [0214], joint 236 may be locked or unlocked via a joint lock control button. This allows such robotic arms to be positioned as desired relative to a patient and the mobile base.
In view of Hulford’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 14) wherein: said frame comprises a main body and a base, said main body holding the image acquisition system and said base being provided with means of displacement to make the robot device moveable; and said frame comprises means for pivoting the main body with respect to the base and a means for blocking the pivoting of said main body so as to orientate said main body with respect to the base at a desired angle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hulford teaches such robotic arms used in medical settings may be mounted on a base 202 with casters and brakes to enhance mobility; and Hulford further teaches joint 236 provides an pivoting interface between the column 210 and the robotic arm 204; and at paragraph [0214], joint 236 may be locked or unlocked via a joint lock control button. This allows such robotic arms to be positioned as desired relative to a patient and the mobile base.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughan et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0214568) as modified by Zhang (“Recent progresses on real-time 3D shape measurement using digital fringe projection techniques”) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Krieger et al. (US Publication No. 2020/0194117).
The teachings of Vaughan have been discussed above. Vaughan fails to specifically teach: (re claim 21) wherein the at least two optical devices integral with the frame acquire images from a distance between 20 cm and 4 m.
Krieger teaches, at paragraph [0097], such systems may combine 3D images acquired from a distance of 30 cm from a patient to generate point cloud data of a surface of the patient.
In view of Krieger’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Vaughan, (re claim 21) wherein the at least two optical devices integral with the frame acquire images from a distance between 20 cm and 4 m, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Krieger teaches 30 cm is a suitable distance from a patient to acquire multiple 3D images to be combined into a dataset representing the surface of the patient. Such distance will yield the predictable result of successfully imaging a patient to develop a 3D model of the surface of the patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 15, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1, 6, and 13-16, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7-12, and 13-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1, 6, and 13-16, and the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection of claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7-12, and 13-15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks, on page 10:
Vaughan describes a multimodal imaging system designed primarily to perform medical imaging of a patient's breast using 3D optical imaging, X-ray imaging and ultrasound imaging.
However, as acknowledged on page 10 of the Office Action, Vaughan does not disclose that each optical device is configured to capture a 3D image and does not disclose that the system generates a plurality of 3D images (in this case, 3D coordinates are generated from the captured 2D images). Nor does Vaughan disclose the fact that a computer generates a real-time model of the human body from a plurality of 3D images. Id.
Zhang does not satisfy the deficiencies of Vaughan.
Zhang describes a set of techniques for generating 3D models, particularly of human bodies, from images captured by optical devices capable of 3D imaging. In Zhang, each optical device described works by projecting structured light onto the target being observed and by decomposing the light captured by a camera into red, green and blue components. Triangulation is then performed to reconstruct a 3D model.
However, Zhang does not describe a robotic arm with degrees of freedom.
A combination of Zhang would fail to satisfy the missing features of Vaughan in addition to providing or suggesting the claimed combination of amended claim 1.
Vaughan teaches, at paragraphs [0063, 0086 and 0088]: “The 3D coordinate obtaining module (702) of the imaging computing device (700) then obtains (804) a plurality of 3D coordinates of a surface of the tissue being imaged, presently the breasts (9, 11) of the patient (5), by means of the 3D scanner of the imaging assembly (1), in the above example an array of cameras (13).” Vaughan additionally teaches an articulated arm 23 at Fig. 4A and paragraph [0068].
Zhang teaches, at section 3.1, each camera may acquire a 3D image; and at section 4.2, using multiple cameras and merging the 3D data pieces together to increase a measurement range.
Vaughan, which teaches using the technique of Zhang at paragraph [0063], when combined with Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant further remarks, on page 10:
Claim 1 also recites the reconstruction of the surface of a human body using two optical devices arranged around the robotic arm and the calculation unit generating for each of the two optical devices a plurality of point clouds. An example technical effect of this feature is that it becomes possible to fill in areas where data points are missing, such as where an image is missing or where there is an occlusion (see page 5).
Vaughan does not disclose any of these features. Moreover, Vaughan does not disclose any points clouds. Zhang is also silent with regards to such features. Vaughan uses a robotic arm with an ultrasound probe, and this robotic arm can create occlusion to any other optical devices combined with Vaughan.
Vaughan teaches plural optical devices arranged around a robotic arm at paragraph [0063] and Figs. 1 and 4A. Vaughan further teaches, at paragraph [0094], using laser based time-of-flight 3D scanning technology, which produces a point cloud for each scanner.
Zhang further teaches, at section 5.4, 3D shape measurements may be based on time-of-flight techniques, or laser range scanning techniques, both of which produce point clouds.
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 SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights