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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/080629 filed 11/03/2022 which claims benefit of provisional application 63/277,731 filed 11/10/2021. This application further claims benefit of foreign application EP22155097.3 filed 02/04/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed on 05/08/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 540 (Network Interface) in figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“…an information representative of the detected movement of the imaging interface device” should corrected to:
“…an information representative of the detected movement, of the imaging interface device” (inserting a comma)
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“rotational movement of the imaging interface device” corrected to:
“rotational movement, of the imaging interface device” (comma)
“receiving an information” should be corrected to:
“receive an information”
“reference plane R relative in the ultrasound image” corrected to:
“reference plane R in the ultrasound image”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“in the control mode” should be corrected to:
“in the one or more control modes”
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“and the control mode” should be corrected to:
“and the one or more control modes”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“while holding imagining interface device” should be corrected to:
“while holding the imaging interface device”
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“distance between a trackable feature of the robotic device the translated reference plane R” should be corrected to:
“distance between a trackable feature of the robotic device and the translated reference plane R”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “defining a reference plane R relative in the ultrasound image intersecting a rotational axis of the imaging interface device”. It is unclear what the reference plane R is relative to. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted for the reference plane R to be relative to the imaging interface device, as suggested by the last lines of claim 19 reciting “…an amount of rotation of the reference plane R relative to the imaging interface device”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke (US20120265071) in view of Lorraine (US20200375571) and Mansi (US20210145412). Berke is cited in the IDS filed 05/08/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Berke teaches a controller (S) for controlling a robotic device (K) configured for insertion into an anatomical structure of a subject (P) (Fig. 4, [0032], [0052-0053], “whereby the control device S is enabled to move the robot arm M in such a way that the cannula K automatically follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2, in particular follows it constantly”),
receiving ultrasound image data from an imaging interface device (2), the ultrasound image data corresponding to an ultrasound image (B) showing the anatomical structure and a portion of the robotic device (K) within in the anatomical structure ([0032], [0038], “Accordingly, the ultrasound images B depict online the tissue layer of the person P…The doctor can thereby be enabled to see on the monitor 4 relatively exactly in which tissue layer of the person P the cannula K is located at the moment”), wherein the imaging interface device (2) is maneuverable for providing the ultrasound image data ([0053], “The ultrasonic transducer 2, by contrast, is guided manually by the doctor”);
detecting a movement, or receive an information representative of the detected movement of the imaging interface device (2) ([0053], “On the basis of the signals coming from the navigation system N, the position and possibly the orientation of the ultrasonic transducer 2 in space is detected… follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2”); and
outputting at least one command for controlling movement of the robotic device (K) from a first position to a second position in response to the detected movement of the imaging interface device (2) ([0053], “the position and possibly the orientation of the ultrasonic transducer 2 in space is detected…the cannula K automatically follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2, in particular follows it constantly”).
However, Berke fails to teach wherein the detected movement is derived from content of the ultrasound image data.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Lorraine teaches such a feature. Lorraine teaches techniques for determining ultrasound probe motion (Title, Abstract, [0032]). Lorraine teaches wherein movement of an ultrasound probe may be detected based on and thus derived from acquired image data ([0032-0033], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to derive motion of the ultrasound imaging device from content of the ultrasound images as taught by Lorraine ([0007], [0032-0033], [0044]). By having probe motion be derived from the ultrasound images themselves, separate probe tracking systems may not be required. Alternatively, additionally deriving motion from ultrasound images may further improve robustness of probe tracking.
However, modified combination noted above fails to explicitly teach the controller comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory memory for storing machine executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the methods described above.
In an analogous control of a robotic device field of endeavor, Mansi teaches such a feature. Mansi teaches a robotically steered catheter (108) (Title, Fig. 1, [0022-0023]). Moreover, Mansi teaches a controller (118) configured to control automatic steering of the catheter and may be implemented using a computer (802) ([0024], [0026], [0039]). Mansi teaches the systems and methods described herein may be implemented using a processor and corresponding non-transitory machine-readable storage device or memory having instructions therein executable by the processor (Claim 15, [0098], [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the controller include a processor and memory storing instructions for controlling the robotic device as taught by Mansi (Claim 15, [0024], [0026], [0039], [0098], [0101]). Including generic computer components for implementing the methods of an invention is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Moreover, having the methods be performed by a processor and corresponding memory predictably improves automation of the method or steps.
Regarding claim 2, Berke in view of Lorraine and Mansi teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Berke fails to explicitly teach wherein the movement of the imaging interface device comprises at least one of a translational movement or a rotational movement.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Lorraine teaches such a feature. Lorraine teaches techniques for determining ultrasound probe motion (Title, Abstract, [0032]). Lorraine teaches wherein movement of an ultrasound probe may be detected based on and thus derived from acquired image data ([0032-0033], [0044]). Lorraine further teaches wherein motions of the probe may include translational motion ([0072]) and rotational (twisting) motion ([0054-0055]). Lorraine teaches a sonographer may move an ultrasound probe (14) on a patient to acquire ultrasound data, and wherein the movement of the probe may comprise lateral (e.g. translational), tilting, or rotating motions ([0040]). Lorraine therefore teaches wherein the movement of an imaging interface device may comprise either a translational movement or a rotational movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the movements comprise either translational or rotational movements as taught by Lorraine ([0040], [0054-0055], [0072]). Performing translational and rotational movements of an ultrasound probe or imaging device may predictably allow for an operator to reach a desired or optimal image of an anatomic region of interest.
Regarding claim 20, Berke teaches controlling a robotic device (K) configured for insertion into an anatomical structure of a subject (P) (Fig. 4, [0032], [0052-0053] “whereby the control device S is enabled to move the robot arm M in such a way that the cannula K automatically follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2, in particular follows it constantly”),
receiving ultrasound image data from an imaging interface device (2), the ultrasound image data corresponding to an ultrasound image (B) showing the anatomical structure and a portion of the robotic device (K) within in the anatomical structure ([0032], [0038], “Accordingly, the ultrasound images B depict online the tissue layer of the person P…The doctor can thereby be enabled to see on the monitor 4 relatively exactly in which tissue layer of the person P the cannula K is located at the moment”), wherein the imaging interface device (2) is maneuverable for providing the ultrasound image data ([0053], “The ultrasonic transducer 2, by contrast, is guided manually by the doctor”);
detecting a movement, or receive an information representative of the detected movement of the imaging interface device (2) ([0053], “On the basis of the signals coming from the navigation system N, the position and possibly the orientation of the ultrasonic transducer 2 in space is detected… follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2”); and
outputting at least one command for controlling movement of the robotic device (K) from a first position to the second position in response to the detected movement of the imaging interface device (2) ([0053], “the position and possibly the orientation of the ultrasonic transducer 2 in space is detected…the cannula K automatically follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2, in particular follows it constantly”).
However, Berke fails to teach wherein the detected movement is derived from content of the ultrasound image data.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Lorraine teaches such a feature. Lorraine teaches techniques for determining ultrasound probe motion (Title, Abstract, [0032]). Lorraine teaches wherein movement of an ultrasound probe may be detected based on and thus derived from acquired image data ([0032-0033], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to derive motion of the ultrasound imaging device from content of the ultrasound images as taught by Lorraine ([0007], [0032-0033], [0044]). By having probe motion be derived from the ultrasound images themselves, separate probe tracking systems may not be required. Alternatively, additionally deriving motion from ultrasound images may further improve robustness of probe tracking.
However, the modified combination noted above fails to teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, the instruction, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: perform the method/steps above.
In an analogous control of a robotic device field of endeavor, Mansi teaches such a feature. Mansi teaches a robotically steered catheter (108) (Title, Fig. 1, [0022-0023]). Moreover, Mansi teaches a controller (118) configured to control automatic steering of the catheter and may be implemented using a computer (802) ([0024], [0026], [0039]). Mansi teaches the systems and methods described herein may be implemented using a processor and corresponding non-transitory machine-readable storage device or memory having instructions therein executable by the processor (Claim 15, [0098], [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the controller include a processor and memory storing instructions for controlling the robotic device as taught by Mansi (Claim 15, [0024], [0026], [0039], [0098], [0101]). Including generic computer components for implementing the methods of an invention is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Moreover, having the methods be performed by a processor and corresponding memory predictably improves automation of the method or steps.
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke (US20120265071) in view of Lorraine (US20200375571) and Mansi (US20210145412) as applied to claims 1 and 20 respectively above, and further in view of Savitsky (US20120238875).
Regarding claim 12, Berke in view of Lorraine and Mansi teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Berke fails to teach wherein the imaging interface device is selectively operable in an imaging mode and one or more control modes, wherein the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive the ultrasound imaging data from the imaging interface device in the imaging mode, and detect the movement or receive information representative of the movement of the imaging interface device in the control mode.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Savitsky teaches such a feature. Savitsky teaches an ultrasound system (100) including an ultrasound probe (104) (Fig. 1, [0017], wherein the ultrasound system 100 and/or ultrasound probe is an imaging interface device). Savitsky teaches the ultrasound system (100) may operate in a standard mode (i.e. imaging mode) which allows a user to use the probe to scan and thus image patients (Claim 13, [0024]). Savitsky further teaches wherein the ultrasound system (100) may operate in a training mode (i.e. control mode) in which the ultrasound probe (104) acts as a motion sensing peripheral, thus sensing or detecting probe motion (Claim 13, [0024]). Savitsky teaches in the training mode (control mode), the ultrasound probe is employed as a motion sensing peripheral to navigate existing patient cases ([0007], [0024-0025]). Savitsky therefore teaches an imaging mode in which ultrasound images are received and a control mode in which movement of the imaging interface device (ultrasound probe) is detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the imaging interface device be selectively operable in an imaging mode and control mode as taught by Savitsky (Claim 13, [0007], [0024-0025]). By having the two modes, a user may navigate through existing patient cases which may help the user expand and refine their knowledge of ultrasound imaging as recognized by Savitsky ([0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 21, Berke in view of Lorraine and Mansi teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 20.
However, Berke fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the at least one processor to: receive selection of an imaging mode or a control mode from the imaging interface device, wherein the ultrasound imaging data is received from the imaging interface device in the imaging mode, and the movement of the imaging interface device is detected in the control mode.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Savitsky teaches such a feature. Savitsky teaches an ultrasound system (100) including an ultrasound probe (104) (Fig. 1, [0017], wherein the ultrasound system 100 and/or ultrasound probe is an imaging interface device). Savitsky teaches the ultrasound system (100) may operate in a standard mode (i.e. imaging mode) which allows a user to use the probe to scan and thus image patients (Claim 13, [0024]). Savitsky further teaches wherein the ultrasound system (100) may operate in a training mode (i.e. control mode) in which the ultrasound probe (104) acts as a motion sensing peripheral, thus sensing or detecting probe motion (Claim 13, [0024]). Savitsky teaches in the training mode (control mode), the ultrasound probe is employed as a motion sensing peripheral to navigate existing patient cases ([0007], [0024-0025]). Savitsky therefore teaches an imaging mode in which ultrasound images are received and a control mode in which movement of the imaging interface device (ultrasound probe) is detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the imaging interface device be configured to select an imaging mode and control mode as taught by Savitsky (Claim 13, [0007], [0024-0025]). By having the two modes, a user may navigate through existing patient cases which may help the user expand and refine their knowledge of ultrasound imaging as recognized by Savitsky ([0024-0025]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke (US20120265071) in view of Lorraine (US20200375571), Mansi (US20210145412), and Savitsky (US20120238875) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Diolaiti (US20100274087).
Regarding claim 13, Berke in view of Lorraine, Mansi, and Savitsky teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 12.
However, Berke fails to explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to select the imaging mode and the control mode.
In an analogous robotic system field of endeavor, Diolaiti teaches such a feature. Diolaiti teaches a robot-assisted surgical system (2100) including a surgeon’s console (2102) (Fig. 1, [0095]). Diolaiti teaches wherein the surgeon’s console (2102) is configured to control or manipulate surgical instruments and imaging systems, and thus comprises a controller ([0096]). Diolaiti teaches wherein the console (2102) includes a graphical user interface (GUI) (2291) configured to allow user selection of a plurality of control modes including an “imaging system” mode and a “tool following” mode ([0137-0138], [0152], [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the controller include a graphical user interface (GUI) configured for selecting modes as taught by Diolaiti ([0137-0138], [0152], [0157]). Having the controller include a GUI for mode selection may predictably make mode selection more convenient.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke (US20120265071) in view of Lorraine (US20200375571), Mansi (US20210145412), and Savitsky (US20120238875) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Toporek (US20200188041) and Schatzle (US5928169).
Regarding claim 14, Berke in view of Lorraine, Mansi, and Savitsky teaches a system for controlling a robotic device (K) configured for insertion into an anatomical structure of a subject (P), comprising: the controller of claim 12 (See claim 12 above).
Berke further teaches the system comprising: a movable imaging interface device (2) ([0053]), the ultrasound imaging data corresponding to an ultrasound image (B) showing the anatomical structure and a portion of the robotic device (K) within the anatomical structure ([0032], [0038], “Accordingly, the ultrasound images B depict online the tissue layer of the person P…The doctor can thereby be enabled to see on the monitor 4 relatively exactly in which tissue layer of the person P the cannula K is located at the moment”).
However, Berke fails to explicitly teach wherein the movable imaging interface device is arranged to send ultrasound image data to the controller.
In an analogous robotic device field of endeavor, Toporek teaches such a feature. Toporek teaches a robotic system (10) including an acoustic probe (20) and an instrument guide (40) mounted on the probe (20) (Fig. 6, [0044], [0074]) Toporek teaches the acoustic probe controller (30a) generates ultrasound volumetric image data (34) and sends the ultrasound image data (34) to the robotic instrument guide controller (50a) (Figs. 1 & 6, [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to send the ultrasound image data to the robotic controller as taught by Toporek (Figs. 1 & 6, [0073-0074]). Using the ultrasound image data, the controller may generate robot actuation commands as needed to actuate the transition of the end effector to a desired pose as recognized by Toporek ([0073]).
However, the modified combination noted above fails to teach wherein the imaging interface device comprises an actuator operable by the user while holding imagining interface device to interactively select the imaging mode and the control mode.
In an analogous ultrasound probe field of endeavor, Schatzle teaches such a feature. Schatzle teaches an ultrasound probe (1) including a button (6) on its handle (3) (Fig. 1, Column 5 lines 1-25). Schatzle teaches wherein a therapy mode may be activated by pressing the button (6) and wherein a locating mode (i.e. imaging mode) may be activated when the button (6) is not actuated (Fig. 1, Column 5 lines 15-25, Column 6 lines 48-56). Schatzle therefore teaches wherein an imaging interface device (1) comprises an actuator (6) operable by a user while holding the imaging interface device (1) to interactively select between modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the imaging interface device include a button on its handle for switching or selecting modes as taught by Schatzle (Fig. 1, Column 5 lines 15-25). Having the mode selection be configured as a button on the handle of the probe predictably allows for ease of mode selection during operation of the probe or ultrasound imaging.
Regarding claim 15, Berke in view of Lorraine, Mansi, Savitsky, Toporek, and Schatzle teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 14.
However, Berke fails to teach wherein the imaging interface device comprises an ultrasound probe, and the actuator comprises at least one of a push button, a slider button or a touch sensitive button on a probe handle of the ultrasound probe.
In an analogous ultrasound probe field of endeavor, Schatzle teaches such a feature. Schatzle teaches an ultrasound probe (1) including a button (6) on its handle (3) (Fig. 1, Column 5 lines 1-25). Schatzle teaches wherein a therapy mode may be activated by pressing the button (6) and wherein a locating mode (i.e. imaging mode) may be activated when the button (6) is not actuated (Fig. 1, Column 5 lines 15-25, Column 6 lines 48-56). Schatzle therefore teaches wherein an imaging interface device (1) comprises an ultrasound probe, and the actuator (6) comprises a push button on a probe handle of the ultrasound probe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the imaging interface device be an ultrasound probe and the actuator comprise a push button on its handle for switching or selecting modes as taught by Schatzle (Fig. 1, Column 5 lines 15-25). Having the mode selection be configured as a push button on the handle of the probe predictably allows for ease of mode selection during operation of the probe or ultrasound imaging. Moreover, ultrasound probes are conventional imaging devices for performing diagnostic ultrasound imaging.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke (US20120265071) in view of Lorraine (US20200375571).
Regarding claim 16, Berke teaches a method of controlling a robotic device (K) configured for insertion into an anatomical structure of a subject (P) (Fig. 4, [0032], [0052-0053], “whereby the control device S is enabled to move the robot arm M in such a way that the cannula K automatically follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2, in particular follows it constantly”), the method comprising:
receiving ultrasound image data from an imaging interface device (2), the ultrasound image data corresponding to an ultrasound image (B) showing the anatomical structure and a portion of the robotic device (K) within in the anatomical structure ([0032], [0038], “Accordingly, the ultrasound images B depict online the tissue layer of the person P…The doctor can thereby be enabled to see on the monitor 4 relatively exactly in which tissue layer of the person P the cannula K is located at the moment”), wherein the imaging interface device (2) is maneuverable for providing the ultrasound image data ([0053], “The ultrasonic transducer 2, by contrast, is guided manually by the doctor”);
detecting a movement, or receiving an information representative of the detected movement of the imaging interface device ([0053], “On the basis of the signals coming from the navigation system N, the position and possibly the orientation of the ultrasonic transducer 2 in space is detected… follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2”); and
outputting to a robot controller (S) at least one command for controlling movement of the robotic device (K) from a first position to a second position in response to the detected movement of the imaging interface device (2) ([0053], “the position and possibly the orientation of the ultrasonic transducer 2 in space is detected…the cannula K automatically follows the manual motion of the ultrasonic transducer 2, in particular follows it constantly”).
However, Berke fails to teach wherein the detected movement is derived from content of the ultrasound image data.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Lorraine teaches such a feature. Lorraine teaches techniques for determining ultrasound probe motion (Title, Abstract, [0032]). Lorraine teaches wherein movement of an ultrasound probe may be detected based on and thus derived from acquired image data ([0032-0033], [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to derive motion of the ultrasound imaging device from content of the ultrasound images as taught by Lorraine ([0007], [0032-0033], [0044]). By having probe motion be derived from the ultrasound images themselves, separate probe tracking systems may not be required. Alternatively, additionally deriving motion from ultrasound images may further improve robustness of probe tracking.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke (US20120265071) in view of Lorraine (US20200375571) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Savitsky (US20120238875).
Regarding claim 17, Berke in view of Lorraine teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 16.
However, Berke fails to teach the invention further comprising: receiving selection of an imaging mode or a control mode from the imaging interface device, wherein the ultrasound image data is received from the imaging interface device in the imaging mode, and the movement of the imaging interface device is detected in the control mode.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Savitsky teaches such a feature. Savitsky teaches an ultrasound system (100) including an ultrasound probe (104) (Fig. 1, [0017], wherein the ultrasound system 100 and/or ultrasound probe is an imaging interface device). Savitsky teaches the ultrasound system (100) may operate in a standard mode (i.e. imaging mode) which allows a user to use the probe to scan and thus image patients (Claim 13, [0024]). Savitsky further teaches wherein the ultrasound system (100) may operate in a training mode (i.e. control mode) in which the ultrasound probe (104) acts as a motion sensing peripheral, thus sensing or detecting probe motion (Claim 13, [0024]). Savitsky teaches in the training mode (control mode), the ultrasound probe is employed as a motion sensing peripheral to navigate existing patient cases ([0007], [0024-0025]). Savitsky therefore teaches an imaging mode in which ultrasound images are received and a control mode in which movement of the imaging interface device (ultrasound probe) is detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Berke to have the imaging interface device be configured to select an imaging mode and control mode as taught by Savitsky (Claim 13, [0007], [0024-0025]). By having the two modes, a user may navigate through existing patient cases which may help the user expand and refine their knowledge of ultrasound imaging as recognized by Savitsky ([0024-0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 6-11, and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 19 further requires correction of its 112(b) rejection above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Within the context of claims 3, 6, 18, and 19, the prior arts cited fail to teach defining of one or more planes in an ultrasound image and controlling a robotic device based on a distance or rotation of the one or more planes relative to an imaging device or trackable feature of the robotic device. In other words, the prior arts fail to teach deriving movement of an imaging interface device through defining image planes and/or reference planes in such a way described by the claims and for the control of the robotic device to be based on calculations associated with the planes.
The most relevant prior arts cited are Berke (US20120265071) and Lorraine (US20200375571). Berke teaches receiving ultrasound image data from an ultrasound probe (2) ([0032], [0038]), detecting movement of the ultrasound probe (2) (Fig. 4, [0053]), and outputting commands for controlling movement of a robotic device (K) in response to the detected movement of the ultrasound probe (2) ([0053]). Lorraine teaches wherein the detected movement of the ultrasound probe may be derived from content of ultrasound images ([0032-0033], [0044]). However, neither Berke nor Lorraine teach defining image planes and/or reference planes in the ultrasound image for the purpose of deriving movement of the ultrasound probe or imaging interface device. Berke teaches wherein probe movement is detected by a navigation system N (Fig. 4, [0034], [0053]). Lorraine teaches wherein probe movement is derived from ultrasound image data by utilizing speckle processing and/or image similarity metrics ([0032], [0044]). The next closest prior art now being cited is Sakaguchi (US20140330128) whom teaches defining planes in ultrasound images (Fig. 3, [0070-0076]) and utilizing them to estimate movement of the ultrasound probe (51) (Fig. 9, [0119], [0121]). However, their approach is different from what is claimed as the planes used by Sakaguchi are for creating intersection points (AB, AC) and calculating movement of the intersection points by feature point matching or block point matching ([0119], [0121]). Therefore, the prior arts as cited fail to teach the features as described in claims 3, 6, 18, and 19, and thus also fail to teach the claims depending therefrom. The aforementioned claims describe a unique way to estimate movement of an ultrasound imaging device based solely on ultrasound images received from the ultrasound imaging device and controlling a robotic device based on that.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOMMY T LY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6404. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00pm-8:00pm eastern time.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/TOMMY T LY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights