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 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicants argue that the rejection of claim 1 fails to establish any rationale on why one skilled in the art would modify the prior art references of Price and Dixon to arrive at the combination. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
The prior art rejection outlines (1) a finding that the prior art reference Price contained a "base" device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;" (2) a finding that the prior art reference Dixon contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries support the conclusion of obviousness such as a finding that the predictable results would save processing and/or energy resources in an imaging system by deactivating a first mode when switching to a second mode.
For the reasons stated above the rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
The amendments to claims 18-20 obviate the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 which has been withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0347815 A1) in view of Dixon et al. (US 2016/0364612 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 18, Price discloses an imaging system comprising:
a housing (See Fig 1 and [0042] HMD 110);
a first camera configured for visual light (See [0035] stereo camera pair includes visible light camera);
a second mono or stereo camera configured for infrared (IR) (See [0035] stereo light camera pair includes IR light camera); and
a structured light generator configured to generate depth images of a target site (See [0036] IR dot-pattern illuminator to determine depth);
wherein the first camera, the second camera, and the structured light generator are contained within the housing and are coordinated to a single reference frame (See Fig 1, Fig 10 and [0009] [0046]),
wherein the imaging system is configured to switch between a first mode and a second mode (See [0046] stereo camera pair may be used for different operations such as tracking or depth imaging),
wherein when the imaging system is in the first mode, the imaging system is configured to either intraoperatively track an object or generate depth images of a target site (See [0051-0054] the cameras may be configured to detect only portions of the visible and IR light spectrum), and
wherein when the imaging system is in the second mode, the imaging system is configured to both intraoperatively track the object and generate depth images of the target site in a simultaneous or interleaved manner (See [0120] head and hand tracking are performed and a depth map is generated. See also [0040]).
Price does not explicitly disclose wherein when the imaging system is in the first mode, the imaging system is configured to either intraoperatively track an object or generate depth images of a target site.
Dixon discloses that it was known in an imaging system when building a depth map to switch from a first mode of a camera system to a second mode including deactivating the first mode (See [0323]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Price with the known methods of Dixon predictably resulting in when the imaging system is in the first mode, the imaging system is configured to either intraoperatively track an object or generate depth images of a target site by applying the court recognized rationale of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of saving processing and/or energy resources.
Regarding claim 2, Price and Dixon further disclose the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the second camera is configured to identify a fiducial disposed on the object for tracking a pose of the object (See Price [0039] sensing the IR dot-pattern texturing).
Regarding claim 6, Price and Dixon further disclose the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the first camera is configured to obtain images that do not include structured light emitted by the structured light generator (See Dixon [0211-0217] the image capture can capture either an IR image or RGB image).
Regarding claim 7, Price and Dixon further disclose the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the structured light generator is sensitive to IR or near IR (See Price [0039] [0079-0081]).
Regarding claim 19, Price and Dixon further disclose the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein configuring the imaging system to perform both of intraoperatively tracking the object and generating depth images of the target site comprises performing both simultaneously (See Price [0120] head and hand tracking are performed and a depth map is generated. See also [0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Price and Dixon further disclose the computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein configuring the imaging system to perform both of intraoperatively tracking the object and generating depth images of the target site comprises performing both in an interleaved manner (See Price [0116] in a pulsed mode the IR illuminator will repeatedly cycle on and off).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0347815 A1) in view of Dixon et al. (US 2016/0364612 A1) in view of Komp (US 2021/0052146 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Price and Dixon further disclose the imaging system of claim 1, wherein the imaging system is configured to intraoperatively switch between the first mode and the second mode in response to control by a computer system (See [0321] Dixon the process or switching carried out by computing device).
Price and Dixon do not explicitly disclose switching based on a step of a surgical procedure being monitored by the imaging system.
Komp discloses that it was known to switch a mode of a camera based on a changing field of view which is indicative of a step (See [0089] when a FOV does not a significant difference it can be indicative of the liver is not sufficiently resected or dissected) during a surgical procedure being monitored by an imaging system (See Fig 8 and [0088-0094]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination further with the known methods of Komp predictably when using a dual mode imaging system in a surgical setting switching based on a step of a surgical procedure being monitored by the imaging system by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of during the course of a surgery change an image according to changes in conditions as suggested by Komp.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0347815 A1) in view of Dixon et al. (US 2016/0364612 A1) in view of Price et al. (US 2018/0218509 A1), hereinafter Price ‘509.
Regarding claim 4, Price and Dixon disclose the imaging system of claim 1, but do not explicitly disclose wherein in the first mode the imaging system is configured to provide an increased frame rate relative to the second mode.
Price ‘509 discloses that it was know to increase a frequency of frame capture between modes (See [0045]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Price with the known methods of Price ‘509 predictably resulting in in the first mode the imaging system is configured to provide an increased frame rate relative to the second mode by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of providing performance benefits as suggested by Price.
Regarding claim 5, Price, Dixon and Price ‘509 further disclose the imaging system of claim 4, wherein a first frame rate of the first mode is 60 Hz and a second frame rate of the second mode is 30 Hz (See Price ‘509 [0045]).
Claim(s) 8-10, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0347815 A1) in view of Dixon et al. (US 2016/0364612 A1) in view of Namiki (US 2012/0239058 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Price discloses a system comprising: an imaging system comprising:
a housing (See Fig 1 and [0042] HMD 110);
a first camera configured for visual light (See [0035] stereo camera pair includes visible light camera);
a second camera configured for infrared (IR) (See [0035] stereo light camera pair includes IR light camera); and
a structured light generator configured to generate depth images of a target site (See [0036] IR dot-pattern illuminator to determine depth);
wherein the first camera, the second camera, and the structured light generator are contained within the housing and are coordinated to a single reference frame (See Fig 1, Fig 10 and [0009] [0046]),
wherein the imaging system is configured to switch between a first mode and a second mode (See [0046] stereo camera pair may be used for different operations such as tracking or depth imaging),
wherein when the imaging system is in the second mode, the imaging system is configured to both intraoperatively track the object and generate depth images of the target site in a simultaneous or interleaved manner (See [0120] head and hand tracking are performed and a depth map is generated. See also [0040]).
Price does not explicitly disclose wherein when the imaging system is in the first mode, the imaging system is configured to either intraoperatively track an object or generate depth images of a target site and does not explicitly disclose a computer system operably coupled to the imaging system, the computer system configured to switch the imaging system between the first mode and the second mode.
Dixon discloses that it was known in an imaging system when building a depth map to switch from a first mode of a camera system to a second mode including deactivating the first mode (See [0323]) and a computer system operably coupled to the imaging system, the computer system configured to switch the imaging system between the first mode and the second mode (See [0321] Dixon the process or switching carried out by computing device).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Price with the known methods of Dixon predictably resulting in when the imaging system is in the first mode, the imaging system is configured to either intraoperatively track an object or generate depth images of a target site and a computer system operably coupled to the imaging system, the computer system configured to switch the imaging system between the first mode and the second mode by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of saving processing and/or energy resources.
Price and Dixon do not explicitly disclose a computer-aided surgical system.
Namiki discloses that it was known for a camera to be employed in a computer aided surgical system.
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Price with the known methods of Namiki predictably resulting in employing the HMD in a computer-aided surgical system by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of allowing depth imaging during surgical procedures.
Regarding claim 9, Price Dixon and Namiki further disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 8, wherein the computer system is configured to automatically switch the imaging system between the first mode and the second mode in response to intraoperative data received by the computer system (See Namiki Fig 4 and [0090-0091]).
Regarding claim 10, Price Dixon and Namiki further disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 8, wherein the computer system is configured to switch the imaging system between the first mode and the second mode in response to user input (See Dixon [0165-0170] a user initiated command to modify operation modes of the video sources).
Regarding claim 13, Price Dixon and Namiki further disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 8, wherein the second camera is configured to identify a fiducial disposed on the object for tracking a pose of the object (See Price [0039] sensing the IR dot-pattern texturing).
Regarding claim 16, Price Dixon and Namiki disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 8, wherein the first camera is configured to obtain images that do not include structured light emitted by the structured light generator (See Dixon [0211-0217] the image capture can capture either an IR image or RGB image).
Regarding claim 17, Price Dixon and Namiki disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 8, wherein the structured light generator is sensitive to IR or near IR (See Price [0039] [0079-0081]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0347815 A1) in view of Dixon et al. (US 2016/0364612 A1) in view of Namiki (US 2012/0239058 A1) and further in view of Hegyi (US 11,006,093 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Price Dixon and Namiki disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a head-mounted display (HMD) comprising an HMD camera; wherein the computer system is further configured to: calculate a calibration matrix that relates a first reference frame associated with the imaging system to a second reference frame associated with the HMD, and determine a position of the HMD when the HMD is not within a field of view of the imaging system via the calculated calibration matrix.
Hegyi discloses a head-mounted display (HMD) comprising an HMD camera (See Fig 1 and Col 23 line 10-67); wherein the computer system is further configured to: calculate a calibration matrix that relates a first reference frame associated with the imaging system to a second reference frame associated with the HMD, and determine a position of the HMD when the HMD is not within a field of view of the imaging system via the calculated calibration matrix (See Col 26 line 55- Col 27 line 40 relating points in 3-dimensional object space to position in the 2-dimensional image space).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Price with the known methods of Hegyi predictably resulting in a head-mounted display (HMD) comprising an HMD camera; wherein the computer system is further configured to: calculate a calibration matrix that relates a first reference frame associated with the imaging system to a second reference frame associated with the HMD, and determine a position of the HMD when the HMD is not within a field of view of the imaging system via the calculated calibration matrix by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of calibrating the head mounted device with the stereo camera.
Regarding claim 12, Price Dixon Namiki Hegyi further disclose the computer-aided surgical system of claim 11, wherein the imaging system is integrated into the HMD (See Price Fig 1, Fig 2, and [0110]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0347815 A1) in view of Dixon et al. (US 2016/0364612 A1) in view of Namiki (US 2012/0239058 A1) and further in view of in view of Price et al. (US 2018/0218509 A1), hereinafter Price ‘509.
Regarding claim 14, Price Dixon and Namiki disclose the imaging system of claim 8, but do not explicitly disclose wherein in the first mode the imaging system is configured to provide an increased frame rate relative to the second mode.
Price ‘509 discloses that it was know to increase a frequency of frame capture between modes (See [0045]).
Prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the known system of Price with the known methods of Price ‘509 predictably resulting in in the first mode the imaging system is configured to provide an increased frame rate relative to the second mode by applying the court recognized rational of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The modification would have the benefit of providing performance benefits as suggested by Price.
Regarding claim 15, Price, Dixon Namiki and Price ‘509 further disclose the imaging system of claim 14, wherein a first frame rate of the first mode is 60 Hz and a second frame rate of the second mode is 30 Hz (See Price ‘509 [0045]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FERNANDO ALCON whose telephone number is (571)270-5668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
FERNANDO . ALCON
Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/FERNANDO ALCON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights