DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered.
Objection to the abstract of the disclosure is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 56, and 63 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 1-3, 8, 24, 56-57, 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220313375 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Gilboa (US 20070293721 A1, hereinafter “Gilboa”)
Regarding claim 1,
Zhang teaches:
A system (Zhang: ¶57: “. . . a robotic bronchoscopy system. . .”) comprising:
an elongate device (Zhang: ¶56, “. . .elongate member, catheter . . .”);
a display system (Zhang: ¶79, “. . . a user console including a treatment interface module. . . The user interface may be provided on a display. . .”));
one or more processors (Zhang: ¶54, “. . . one or more processors. . .”);
and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Zhang: ¶54, “. . . the one or more processors may be operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable medium. The non-transitory computer readable medium can store logic, code, and/or program instructions executable by the one or more processors unit for performing one or more steps. . .):
determine a pose of the elongate device (Zhang: ¶72, “. . . Positioning sensors such as electromagnetic (EM) sensors may be embedded at the distal tip of the catheter and an EM field generator may be positioned next to the patient torso during procedure. The EM field generator may locate the EM sensor position in 3D space or may locate the EM sensor position and orientation in 5D or 6D space. . .”; NOTE: The catheter is the elongate device) within a passageway of an anatomy of a patient (Zhang: ¶72, “. . . the system may align the rendered virtual view of the airways to the patient airways . . . During robotic bronchoscope driving towards the target site, the location of the bronchoscope inside the airways may be tracked and displayed . . . ”); and
based on the pose of the elongate device, display on the display system:
an image of the passageway (Zhang: ¶73, “FIG. 4A . . . visualizing a virtual airway . . . the location of the tip of the catheter is displayed in real-time relative to the virtual airway model . . .”),
and one or more navigation indicators associated with one or more directions within a workspace containing the passageway, wherein the one or more navigation indicators are displayed over the image of the passageway (Zhang: ¶76, “FIG. 4B shows examples of navigation views . . . overlaid with virtual renderings. . . The virtual renderings or overlaid information may include a plurality of components such as a virtual airway . . . The navigation view may also include a directional indicator 424 indicating navigation directions . . .”; NOTE: A virtual airway is a passageway);
wherein: the one or more navigation indicators comprise an indicator of a direction within the workspace (Zhang: ¶76, “. . .path 423. . .”; NOTE: in reference to Zhang Fig. 4C, directional arrow path 423 is within the workspace which is inside the airways, paragraph 72 describes providing visual guide to an operator when driving the bronchoscope towards the target site) relative to a distal end of the elongate device (Zhang: ¶77, “. . . the virtual renderings of the airway and view a live camera view overlaid with the selected virtual rendering of lesion 424 and path 423”; Zhang: ¶100, “. . . the camera may be embedded into a cavity 1210 at the distal tip of the catheter. . .”; NOTE: The camera is embedded at the distal tip of the catheter which is an elongate device. The directional arrow path 423 as shown in Fig. 4C is overlaid to the camera view, therefore, the directional arrow which is the navigation indicator is relative to a distal end of the elongate device.); and
the direction within the workspace comprises an anterior direction, a posterior direction, a lateral direction, a medial direction, a superior direction, or an inferior direction relative to the anatomy of the patient. (Zhang: ¶76, “. . . The navigation view may also include a directional indicator 424 indicating navigation directions (e.g., anterior, superior, inferior, posterior, left, right).”).
Although Zhang teaches displaying an image of a passageway and navigation indicators based on the position of the catheter, Zhang fails to teach: based on the pose of the elongate device, display on the display system: two or more lines corresponding to two or more anatomical planes of the patient.
The analogous art Gilboa teaches:
based on the pose of the elongate device, display on the display system: two or more lines corresponding to two or more anatomical planes of the patient (Gilboa: ¶1, “The present invention relates to endoscopes . . .”; ¶11, “. . . FIG. 11, this shows a display screen . . . The display as shown is divided primarily into four views. Three of these views display mutually perpendicular two-dimensional "slice" views derived from the CT data. The upper left view is an axial projection of the patient. The right upper view is a sagittal projection. The lower left view is an anterior-posterior ("AP") view. In each view, a crosshair indicates the planes of the other two slices currently displayed, all three planes intersecting at a point in the CT coordinate frame. . . “; ¶164, “. . . “(The additional lines appearing in these figures will be discussed below.) FIG. 19 shows a further example in which the tip-to-target display of FIG. 17A is combined with dynamic CT-based displays corresponding to axial, sagittal and AP planes passing through the current catheter tip position. . .”; NOTE: The two or more lines are the crosshairs. The corresponding anatomical planes are the indicated planes by the crosshair.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang and Gilboa and include: based on the pose of the elongate device, display on the display system: two or more lines corresponding to two or more anatomical planes of the patient.
The reason for doing so is for the display information “is supplemented with various additional displays which facilitate interpretation by the practitioner during use, and provide various additional information or functionality to the practitioner” (Gilboa: ¶164).
Regarding claim 2, depending on 1,
The combination of Zhang and Gilboa teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Zhang further teaches:
wherein the elongate device comprises a catheter (Zhang: ¶5, “. . . The elongate member may also be referred to as bronchoscope, catheter which can be used interchangeably throughout the specification.”).
Regarding claim 3, depending on 1,
The combination of Zhang and Gilboa teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Zhang further teaches:
wherein the pose of the elongate device comprises a position of the elongate device within the workspace and an orientation of the elongate device relative to the workspace (Zhang: ¶105, “. . . the stereoscopic alignment may provide differential 5D measurement, or a fused 6D measurement, that allows accurate positioning and orientation-sensing of the catheter distal tip. During the procedure, the EM field generator positioned next to, under, or above, a patient torso may locate the EM sensors thereby tracking the location of the catheter tip in real-time”; NOTE: The workspace is where the procedure is taking place).
Regarding claim 8, depending on 1,
The combination of Zhang and Gilboa teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Zhang further teaches:
wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to display on the display system an orientation guide (Zhang: ¶72, “. . .visual guide. . .” NOTE: Zhang’s system tracks position and orientation of the catheter as disclosed in ¶72 that provides visual guide to the operator.) comprising:
a three-dimensional (3D) representation of the workspace; and (Zhang: ¶71, “. . . the 3D rendered airway model and based on the location of the lesion, the navigation and localization subsystem. . .”)
a plurality of second navigation indicators based on the pose of the elongate device relative to the workspace (Zhang: ¶73, “FIG. 4A shows an example of a user interface for visualizing a virtual airway 409 overlaid with an optimal path 403, location of the tip of the catheter 401, and lesion location 405. In this example, the location of the tip of the catheter is displayed in real-time relative to the virtual airway model 409 thereby providing visual guidance. As shown in the example of FIG. 4A, during robotic bronchoscope driving, the optimal path 403 may be displayed and overlaid onto the virtual airway model. . . .”; NOTE: The optimal path which is a second navigation indicator is based on the position of the tip of the catheter. Fig 4A shows the position of the catheter 401 relative to the workspace which is the airway.).
Regarding claim 24, depending on 1
The combination of Zhang and Gilboa teaches:
The system of claim 1,
Zhang further teaches:
further comprising: a first input device (Zhang: ¶127, “. . . lever on a joystick), and a second input device (Zhang: ¶137, “. . . knobs . . . which can articulate the robotic bronchoscope distal tip . . .);
and wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
display, on the display system, a virtual representation of a path through the passageway based on the pose of the elongate device (Zhang: ¶73, “FIG. 4A. . . the location of the tip of the catheter is displayed in real-time relative to the virtual airway model . . . the optimal path 403 may be displayed . . .”; NOTE: the optimal path is updated every time the catheter is moved as the location is displayed in real-time. Also see figure 4A);
receive a first input via the first input device (Zhang: ¶127, “. . . the speed of moving a lever on a joystick . . .; NOTE: moving a lever on a joystick is the first input received by the first input device which is the joystick);
in response to the first input, display a second image of the passageway corresponding to movement of the elongate device (Zhang: ¶73, “FIG. 4A shows an example of a user interface for visualizing a virtual airway 409 . . . In some cases, users may also be permitted to access the camera view or image/video 411 captured by the bronchoscope in real time”; ¶127, “. . . the speed of moving a lever on a joystick for driving a robotic elongate member forward or backward . . .; NOTE: The camera view is in real time, every time the camera moves by moving the joystick, the image is updated. The current image from moving the joystick to drive a robotic elongate member forward or backward is the second image);
receive a second input via the second input device (Zhang: ¶136, “. . . manipulate the bronchoscope manually . . . ¶137, “. . . Two or more may knobs allow the combination motion of all pulleys which can articulate the robotic bronchoscope distal tip . . .; NOTE: The second input is inherent to the knobs.);
and in response to the second input, display a third image of the passageway corresponding to a change to the second image along at least one of a translational or a rotational degree of freedom (¶137, “. . . Two or more may knobs allow the combination motion of all pulleys which can articulate the robotic bronchoscope distal tip . . .; ¶100, “. . . the attitude or orientation of the imaging device may be controlled by controlling a rotational movement (e.g., roll) of the catheter . . .”; ¶106, “. . . steer or articulate (e.g., up, down, pitch, yaw, or any direction in-between) certain section or portion (e.g., distal section) of the catheter” ¶73, “FIG. 4A shows an example of a user interface for visualizing a virtual airway 409 . . . In some cases, users may also be permitted to access the camera view or image/video 411 captured by the bronchoscope in real time”; ¶127, “. . . the speed of moving a lever on a joystick for driving a robotic elongate member forward or backward . . .;
NOTE: The camera view is in real time, every time the camera moves by moving the knobs, the image is updated. The current image from moving the knobs to articulate the robotic bronchoscope distal tip the third image.
Regarding CRM claims 56-57 respectively, CRM claims 56-57 are drawn to the CRM corresponding to the instructions of using same as claimed in the apparatus of claims 1-2 respectively. Therefore, CRM claims 56-57 correspond to the instructions in the apparatus of claims 1-2, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding method claim 62, CRM claim 62 is drawn to the CRM corresponding to the instructions of using same as claimed in apparatus claim 24. Therefore, CRM claim 62 corresponds to the instructions in the apparatus of claim 24, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding method claim 63, method claim 63 is drawn to the method corresponding to the instructions of using same as claimed in apparatus claim 1. Therefore, method claim 63 corresponds to the instructions in the apparatus of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 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 9-10, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Gilboa further in view of Eckl (US 20120146896 A1, hereinafter “Eckl”).
Regarding claim 9, depending on 8
The combination of Zhang and Gilboa teaches:
The system of claim 8,
Although Zhang’s system tracks position and orientation of the elongate device which is a catheter’s location to provide visual guide using EM field generator and displaying the location of the catheter’s tip in real-time relative to the workspace which is the virtual airway as disclosed in paragraph 72, adjusting orientation of virtual components as disclosed in paragraph 126, and displaying 3D representation of the workspace (airway) as illustrated in Fig. 4A, however Zhang fails to disclose wherein the orientation guide comprises a virtual sphere, and the 3D representation of the workspace is centered within the virtual sphere.
The analogous art Eckl teaches:
wherein the orientation guide (Eckl: ¶60, “. . .assists the orientation of the user”) comprises a virtual sphere (Eckl: ¶66, “. . . wherein a point of the circular input field defined by the input is converted into a positioning point on a virtual sphere. . .), and the 3D representation of the workspace is centered within the virtual sphere (Eckl: ¶50, “. . .wherein the center points of the virtual sphere and of the object substantially correspond. . .”; NOTE: The object is the workspace, since the object (object which is a three-dimensional object, Eckl Abstract) and virtual sphere’s center point substantially correspond, therefore, the object, which is the workspace is centered within the virtual sphere).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gilboa and Eckl and implement Eckl’s teaching wherein the orientation guide comprises a virtual sphere, and the 3D representation of the workspace is centered within the virtual sphere.
The reason for doing so is to provide “continuous determination of a perspective or an angle of view relative to a three-dimensional fixed point” (Eckl: ¶9).
Regarding claim 10, depending on 9
The combination of Zhang, Gilboa, and Eckl teaches:
The system of claim 9,
Eckl further teaches:
wherein the orientation guide comprises one or more equator lines (Eckl Fig. 3-4 references EF1 and EF2) along a virtual surface of the virtual sphere (Eckl: ¶95, “The circle outline . . . indicated as an orientation aid for a user on the disk”; ¶97, “The circular disk EF lies in a virtual sphere VK to which the position in 3-dimensional space is to be transmitted. The center point of the sphere is identical to the circle center point”).
Regarding CRM claim 58, CRM claim 58 is drawn to the CRM corresponding to the instructions of using same as claimed in the apparatus of claims 8-10. Therefore, CRM claim 58 corresponds to the instructions in the apparatus of claims 8-10, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gilboa further in view of Duindam et al. (US 20200054399 A1, hereinafter “Duindam”).
Regarding claim 14, depending on 8,
The combination of Zhang and Gilboa teaches:
The system of claim 8,
However, the above combination fails to teach wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to highlight a first portion of the 3D representation of the workspace based on a position of the elongate device relative to the workspace.
The analogous art Duindam teaches:
wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Duindam: ¶48, . . . includes programmed instructions (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing the instructions) to implement some or all of the methods . . . The processors of control system 112 may execute instructions comprising instruction corresponding to processes disclosed herein . . .”)
to highlight a first portion (Duindam: ¶119, “. . . the correct branch may be indicated by lighting up . . .) of the 3D representation of the workspace (Duindam: ¶119, “. . . the rendered 3D model . . .”) based on a position of the elongate device relative to the workspace (Duindam: ¶119, “. . . In the examples depicted in FIGS. 13A, the branch to be driven down is highlighted using contour lines that selectively extend down the correct branch . . .”; ¶118, “Virtual distal view 1300 is generated based on the 3D model of the anatomy. With the 3D model registered to the anatomy, the position of the catheter within the 3D model may be determined based on real time shape sensing. Virtual distal view 1300 is then generated by rendering the 3D model from the perspective of the distal end of the catheter”; NOTE: The highlighting guides the operator to drive the catheter into the correct branch so the highlighting is based on where the catheter is positioned.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gilboa, and Duindam and implement wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to highlight a first portion of the 3D representation of the workspace based on a position of the elongate device relative to the workspace. The reason for doing so is to “to provide a graphical user interface that supports intuitive control and management of medical instruments including flexible and/or steerable elongate devices, such as steerable catheters, that are suitable for use during minimally invasive medical techniques” (Duindam: ¶4).
Claims 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gilboa in view Eckl further in view of Duindam et al. (US 20200054399 A1, hereinafter “Duindam”).
Regarding claim 59, depending on 58,
The combination of Zhang, Gilboa, and Eckl teaches:
The CRM of claim 58,
However, the above combination fails to teach wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to highlight a first portion of the 3D representation of the workspace based on a position of the elongate device relative to the workspace.
The analogous art Duindam teaches:
wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (Duindam: ¶48, . . . includes programmed instructions (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing the instructions) to implement some or all of the methods . . . The processors of control system 112 may execute instructions comprising instruction corresponding to processes disclosed herein . . .”)
to highlight a first portion (Duindam: ¶119, “. . . the correct branch may be indicated by lighting up . . .) of the 3D representation of the workspace (Duindam: ¶119, “. . . the rendered 3D model . . .”) based on a position of the elongate device relative to the workspace (Duindam: ¶119, “. . . In the examples depicted in FIGS. 13A, the branch to be driven down is highlighted using contour lines that selectively extend down the correct branch . . .”; ¶118, “Virtual distal view 1300 is generated based on the 3D model of the anatomy. With the 3D model registered to the anatomy, the position of the catheter within the 3D model may be determined based on real time shape sensing. Virtual distal view 1300 is then generated by rendering the 3D model from the perspective of the distal end of the catheter”; NOTE: The highlighting guides the operator to drive the catheter into the correct branch so the highlighting is based on where the catheter is positioned.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gilboa, Eckl, and Duindam and implement wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to highlight a first portion of the 3D representation of the workspace based on a position of the elongate device relative to the workspace. The reason for doing so is to “to provide a graphical user interface that supports intuitive control and management of medical instruments including flexible and/or steerable elongate devices, such as steerable catheters, that are suitable for use during minimally invasive medical techniques” (Duindam: ¶4).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Gilboa further in view of Duindam further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20190365199 A1, hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 15, depending on 14
The combination of Zhang, Gilboa, and Duindam teaches:
The system of claim 14,
Duindam further teaches: wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
and based on the change in the pose of the elongate device:
highlight a second portion of the 3D representation, and un-highlight the first portion of the 3D representation (Duindam: ¶110, “Rather than depicting the full 3D path of the alternate route, alternate route indicator 1115 may include a simplified indication that an alternate route is available, such as a vertical dotted line. In one example, a clinician can select or click on alternate route indicator 1115. In response, reduced anatomical model 1100 may be updated to display the alternate route instead of the originally displayed route”; NOTE: Duindam teaches highlighting the correct branch to be driven down with contour lines as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. The alternate route is the second portion which is indicated or highlighted by dotted lines. When the alternate route is selected, the display is updated to display the alternate route instead of the originally displayed route or the first portion, therefore the first portion is un-highlighted inherently. Therefore, the highlighting and highlighting is based on the change in the pose of the elongate device when the alternate route is selected)
However, the above combination fails to teach: determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace;
The analogous art Zhao teaches:
determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace; (Zhao: ¶30, “. . . the term “shape” refers to a set of poses, positions, or orientations measured along an object . . .”; ¶81, “. . . navigation of the distal end of the elongate device to the left or the right may help identify one or more landmark locations associated with the left and/or right primary bronchus. In some examples, data from the shape sensor and/or other sensor may optionally be used . . . identifying a possible landmark location within the trachea of the patient . . . used to identify a first plane that bisects the anatomy of the patient into right and left halves. As the distal end is further steered into either the left or right primary bronchus, a second angle defining a second plane may be identified, which is roughly orthogonal to the first plane. The orientation of the first and second planes may then be used to determine one or more additional landmark locations”; NOTE: when the elongate device is steered, a second plane is identified. The system knows the left and right sides of the anatomy.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gilboa, Duindam, and Zhao and implement determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace. The reason for doing so is to provide “methods for performing image-guided surgery with minimal clinical disturbances” (Zhao: ¶3).
Regarding claim 16, depending on 15
The combination of Zhang, Gilboa, Duindam, and Zhao teaches:
The system of claim 15,
Zhao further teaches:
wherein: the plane bisecting the workspace comprises a sagittal plane of the workspace (Zhao: ¶81, “. . . orientation of the patient relative to the proximal point of the elongate device. . . identify a first plane that bisects the anatomy of the patient into right and left halves . . .”; NOTE: a plane that bisects the anatomy into right and left halves is a Sagittal Plane, the workspace is the patient )
the first portion of the 3D representation corresponds to a first side of the sagittal plane (), and the second portion of the 3D representation corresponds to an opposite side of the sagittal plane from the first side (Zhao: ¶63 “. . . Segmented model 502 may be a three-dimensional model, such as a mesh model, that including the walls defining the interior lumens or passageways of the lungs . . .”; NOTE: The first portion is the left primary bronchus and the second portion is the right primary bronchus which is the opposite side of the first side)
Regarding claim 17, depending on 15
The combination of Zhang, Gilboa, Duindam and Zhao teaches:
The system of claim 15,
Duindam further teaches:
wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to,
based on the change in the pose of the elongate device, switch positions of a first one and a second one of the plurality of second navigation indicators included in the orientation guide (Duindam: ¶110 “. . . alternate route indicator 1115 may include a simplified indication that an alternate route is available, such as a vertical dotted line . . . In response, reduced anatomical model 1100 may be updated to display the alternate route, instead of the originally displayed route. . . reduced anatomical model 1100 may be updated to display the alternate route, instead of the originally displayed route. . . In another example, when clinician begins to traverse the branch corresponding to the alternate route, reduced anatomical model 1100 may automatically update to display the alternate route . . .”; NOTE: Duindam’s system provides an indication that an alternate route is available. When the clinician selects the alternate route, this changes the pose of the elongate device. Then the system updates the display to display the alternate route (NOTE: the alternate route is the second one) instead of the originally displayed route (NOTE: the originally displayed route is the first one) effectively switching the positions with the old route in the orientation guide.)
Claim 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gilboa further in view of Eckl further in view of Duindam further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20190365199 A1, hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding CRM claim 60: The combination of Zhang, Gilboa, Eckl, and Duindam teaches:
The CRM of claim 59,
Duindam further teaches: wherein the CRM stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
and based on the change in the pose of the elongate device:
highlight a second portion of the 3D representation, and un-highlight the first portion of the 3D representation (Duindam: ¶110, “Rather than depicting the full 3D path of the alternate route, alternate route indicator 1115 may include a simplified indication that an alternate route is available, such as a vertical dotted line. In one example, a clinician can select or click on alternate route indicator 1115. In response, reduced anatomical model 1100 may be updated to display the alternate route instead of the originally displayed route”; NOTE: Duindam teaches highlighting the correct branch to be driven down with contour lines as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. The alternate route is the second portion which is indicated or highlighted by dotted lines. When the alternate route is selected, the display is updated to display the alternate route instead of the originally displayed route or the first portion, therefore the first portion is un-highlighted inherently. Therefore, the highlighting and highlighting is based on the change in the pose of the elongate device when the alternate route is selected)
However, the above combination fails to teach: determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace;
The analogous art Zhao teaches:
determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace; (Zhao: ¶30, “. . . the term “shape” refers to a set of poses, positions, or orientations measured along an object . . .”; ¶81, “. . . navigation of the distal end of the elongate device to the left or the right may help identify one or more landmark locations associated with the left and/or right primary bronchus. In some examples, data from the shape sensor and/or other sensor may optionally be used . . . identifying a possible landmark location within the trachea of the patient . . . used to identify a first plane that bisects the anatomy of the patient into right and left halves. As the distal end is further steered into either the left or right primary bronchus, a second angle defining a second plane may be identified, which is roughly orthogonal to the first plane. The orientation of the first and second planes may then be used to determine one or more additional landmark locations”; NOTE: when the elongate device is steered, a second plane is identified. The system knows the left and right sides of the anatomy.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Gilboa, Eckl, Duindam, and Zhao and implement determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace. The reason for doing so is to provide “methods for performing image-guided surgery with minimal clinical disturbances” (Zhao: ¶3).
Claims 19, and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Gilboa further in view in view of Zhao and Duindam.
Regarding claim 19, depending on 1
Zhang teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the memory stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a change in the pose of the elongate device (NOTE: see rejection of claim 1),
However, Zhang fails to teach wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace.
The analogous art Zhao teaches:
determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace; (Zhao: ¶30, “. . . the term “shape” refers to a set of poses, positions, or orientations measured along an object . . .”; ¶81, “. . . navigation of the distal end of the elongate device to the left or the right may help identify one or more landmark locations associated with the left and/or right primary bronchus. In some examples, data from the shape sensor and/or other sensor may optionally be used . . . identifying a possible landmark location within the trachea of the patient . . . used to identify a first plane that bisects the anatomy of the patient into right and left halves. As the distal end is further steered into either the left or right primary bronchus, a second angle defining a second plane may be identified, which is roughly orthogonal to the first plane. The orientation of the first and second planes may then be used to determine one or more additional landmark locations”; NOTE: when the elongate device is steered, a second plane is identified. The system knows the left and right sides of the anatomy.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, and Zhao and implement determine a change in the pose of the elongate device, wherein the change in the pose includes a change in a position of the elongate device across a plane bisecting the workspace.
The reason for doing so is to provide “methods for performing image-guided surgery with minimal clinical disturbances” (Zhao: ¶3).
However, the combination of Zhang and Zhao still fails to teach based on the change in the pose of the elongate device, switch positions of a first one and a second one of the one or more navigation indicators.
The analogous art Duindam teaches:
based on the change in the pose of the elongate device, switch positions of a first one and a second one of the one or more navigation indicators (Duindam: ¶110, “Rather than depicting the full 3D path of the alternate route, alternate route indicator 1115 may include a simplified indication that an alternate route is available, such as a vertical dotted line. In one example, a clinician can select or click on alternate route indicator 1115. In response, reduced anatomical model 1100 may be updated to display the alternate route instead of the originally displayed route”; NOTE: The alternate route is the second one, and the original is the first one of the one or more navigation indicators. When the alternate route is displayed instead of the original rout, the system effectively switches the indicator position from displaying the original route to the alternate route).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zhang, Zhao, and Duindam and implement based on the change in the pose of the elongate device, switch positions of a first one and a second one of the one or more navigation indicators.
The reason for doing so is to “to provide a graphical user interface that supports intuitive control and management of medical instruments including flexible and/or steerable elongate devices, such as steerable catheters, that are suitable for use during minimally invasive medical techniques” (Duindam: ¶4).
Regarding method claim 61, method claim 61 is drawn to the method corresponding to the instructions of using same as claimed in apparatus claim 19. Therefore, method claim 61 corresponds to the instructions in the apparatus of claim 19, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
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 PATRICK GALERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5070. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700 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, King Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/PATRICK P GALERA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617