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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to election requirement of 02/26/2026, applicant elected Groups IA, IIA, group a, and species 2 with traverse.
Applicant’s argument is that independent claims 1, 26, 43 are amended to include shared special technical feature, in comparison with applied prior art Jarc. However, upon further search and consideration, examiner finds that these are not special features since they are not technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art, as evidenced by the 103 rejection over Jarc in view of Gronkowski as discussed in this Office Action (For brevity, a full analysis is omitted here, but can be referenced below). All other arguments presented in remarks also refer to the same reason for traversal. Hence, the restriction requirement between groups and species are maintained. Reasons for all other groups are same as detailed in the previous restriction requirement. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 24-26, 29, 31, 43 are directed to elected groups and species and considered for examination. Claims 3, 11-13, 19, 21, 23, 32, 34, 41 are considered withdrawn.
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, 4-5, 9, 24-26, 29, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarc [US 20170180720 A1] in view of Gronkowski [US 8784206 B1].
As per claim 1, Jarc teaches a computer-assisted device (Jarc Fig 1A-1D) comprising:
a repositionable structure system (Jarc Fig 1C, surgeon's console 120. ¶0037-¶0041 “The surgeon grasps a pincher assembly 124a, 124b on each of control interfaces 122… Multiple instruments can be activated by depressing multiple ones of pedals 128… manipulation of endoscope 112 or other surgical instruments can be achieved through manipulation of headrest 130” ¶0058 “In some embodiments, the distance between the left and right eye pieces 125a, 125b are adjustable to accommodate different interpupillary distances of different users” These sections imply the components of the structure is repositionable)
configured to physically couple to and support a display unit (Jarc Fig 1C structure 120 physically couple to and supports stereo image viewer system 126),
the display unit configured to display images viewable by an operator (Jarc ¶0039 “…left eyepiece 125a and a right eyepiece 125b, so that the surgeon may view left and right stereo images using the surgeon's left and right eyes”),
the images being captured by an imaging device separate from the display unit; (Jarc ¶0039 “Left side and right side images captured by endoscope 112 are outputted on corresponding left and right image displays”);
an actuator system physically coupled to the repositionable structure system, the actuator system drivable (Jarc ¶0027 “a control system 22 that is operatively linked to sensors, motors, actuators, and other components of the teleoperational assembly 12, the operator input system 16 and to the image capture system 18”)
a sensor system configured to capture sensor data associated with a portion of a head of the operator (Jarc Fig 3A item 212 /210 with IR sensing); and
a control system communicably coupled to
wherein the control system is configured to: determine, based on the sensor data, a geometric parameter of the portion of the head relative to a portion of the computer-assisted device selected from the group consisting of: portions of the display unit (Jarc Fig 2A, ¶0062-¶0063, determination of gaze point in relation to IR sensor data and image display 151) and portions of the repositionable structure system (This is not elected /considered for examination),
the geometric parameter being representative of a geometric relationship of at least one eye of the operator relative to an image displayed by the display unit (Jarc Fig 2A, ¶0062-¶0063, gaze tracking),
Jarc does not expressly teach the stroked out limitations including the actuator to move the repositionable structure system; the control system communicably coupled to the actuator system and the sensor system and, determine a commanded motion based on the geometric parameter and a target parameter, and command the actuator system to move the repositionable structure system based on the commanded motion, wherein the commanded moves at least one of a lens of the display unit relative to a housing of the display unit or a headrest of the display unit relative to the display unit.
Gronkowski, in a field of stereoscopic view 3D display associated with a wagering game machines, teaches actuator to move the repositionable structure system (Gronkowski Col 9 lines 17-22 “…automatically moving the parallax barrier 410, the system can shift a depiction of an image to a neighboring pixel. In examples of lenticular lens 3D displays, the system can move a lens position and/or shift imagery on pixels” automatic movement requires actuators);
the control system communicably coupled to the actuator system and the sensor system (Gronkowski Col 7 lines 1-33 “The system can then calculate a degree of alteration to a viewing perspective of the three-dimensional image … a camera 355, can also detect movement and repositioning of the head 331 (e.g., via head tracking) and send signals to the module”),
determine a commanded motion based on the geometric parameter and a target parameter (Gronkowski Col 4 lines 1-3 head position or viewing perspectives are the geometric parameter, Col 4 lines 7-9 “some stereoscopic effects” being optimized is a target parameter), and
command the actuator system to move the repositionable structure system based on the commanded motion, wherein the commanded moves at least one of a lens of the display unit relative to a housing of the display unit (Gronkowski Col 8 line 40-Col 9 line 22 “user 430 has moved his head 431 from a previous (e.g., centralized) position. … the system can move a lens position and/or shift imagery on pixels”, i.e. the lenticular lenses repositioned on the autostereoscopic displays), or a headrest of the display unit relative to the display unit (This is not elected /considered for examination).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Jarc, by integrating features of stereo imaging as in Gronkowski. As per MPEP 2143.I.F, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, work in a field of stereoscopic view 3D display associated with a wagering game machines, may prompt variations of it for use in the field of stereo viewer for medical devices as in Gronkowski. One design incentive for utilizing Gronkowski is to adjust for presentation of images according to changes in parallax or viewing perspectives. This is to motivation to modify the image viewer system in Jarc.
As per claim 4, Jarc in view of Gronkowski further teaches wherein the portion of the computer-assisted device comprises the lens (Jarc ¶0058 “The left and right eyepieces 125a, 125b include lenses”), the lens being positioned between a location of the image and an expected location of the at least one eye (¶0039, ¶0058, lens between eye and stereo viewed images, when surgeon views images through eyepieces).
As per claim 5, Jarc in view of Gronkowski further teaches wherein the geometric relationship is an optical distance between the at least one eye and the image (Jarc ¶0063 “configured to calculate the 3D location of the surgeon's gaze point with respect to the second coordinate frame 165”. As seen in Fig 2 165 related to image display).
As per claim 9, Jarc in view of Gronkowski further teaches the computer-assisted device further comprises a sensor configured to detect kinematic information about the repositionable structure system (Gronkowski Col 9 lines 25-29 “The system can modify …focus or position of lenticular lenses, etc. that impart stereoscopic presentation of the 3D image based” Modification of position requires kinematic information such as distance and positions /locations); and to determine the geometric parameter, the control system is configured to use the kinematic information to determine a physical configuration of the repositionable structure system (Gronkowski Col 9 lines 25-29).
As per claim 24, Jarc in view of Gronkowski further teaches wherein the display unit further comprises an optical element (Jarc Fig 3c, ¶0064 “208a, 208b are liquid crystal display (LCD) screens.”), wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor disposed behind the optical element, in a direction away from the operator (Jarc Fig 3B items 210/212).
As per claim 25, Jarc in view of Gronkowski further teaches wherein the target parameter is determined based on at least one input selected from the group consisting of: a physical configuration of the display unit ; a type of an optical component of the display unit; and a display related characteristic of the display unit (Gronkowski Col 4 lines 7-9 “stereoscopic effects of the reel element 115”, is a characteristic of the display unit).
As per claim 26, 29, it is directed to method of claims 1, 5 and are rejected for same reasons as above.
As per claim 43, it is directed to embody method of method of claim 26 in one or more non-transitory machine-readable media comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions. This is further taught by Jarc in view of Gronkowski (Jarc ¶0050 “method processes described herein may be implemented, at least in part, in the form of executable code stored on non-transient, tangible, machine readable media”).
Improper Markush Grouping Rejection
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 24-26, 29, 31, 43 rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of IA -IB and IIA-IIB (as grouped in previous restriction requirement of 02/26/2026) is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: The geometric parameters of IA-IB recited does not recite single structural similarity and a common use, since they are directed to different parameters and uses, i.e. lens positioning vs headrest positioning. Similarly the Markush grouping of IIA-IIB are directed to lens positioning vs headrest positioning.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. Note, applicant has already elected IA and IIA and only new claims directed to these will be examined if presented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 31 includes allowable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if pending improper Markush grouping rejection is rectified. Examiner does not find any references of record (See IDS, PTO 892) individually or in combination teaching wherein the at least one eye comprises a first eye and a second eye, and wherein determining the geometric parameter comprises: identifying pupils of the first and second eyes based on the sensor data; determining a sensed distance between the pupils; and determining the geometric parameter based on the sensed distance between the pupils and a reference distance between the pupils, as recited in claims 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights