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
Applicant argument filed on 2/11/2026 are persuasive. After searching for the elected group, examiner feels that the prior art used for the first group can be used to reject the second group of claims (claims 26-30). Hence there may not have excess burden in searching the second group while searching for the first group. Therefore, the requirement for restriction on 11/26/2025 is withdrawn. All claims (11-30) are being examined.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 19, 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717.
Regarding claim 1: Thomas teaches a method comprising: capturing, via a camera a first image
(current image abstract) of a surface defining the object that was captured by the camera (inherent property of a camera, a camera captured light reflected from the surface of the object); from the first image, generate a first feature (feature, paragraph 0023, matching features, paragraph 0027, feature of captured image paragraph 0026, note, paragraph 0026 teaches matches captured image with reference image, paragraph 27 teaches the matching method includes matching features); identifying a second feature (reference feature paragraph 0024) of a plurality of second feature (set of reference images, paragraph 0026) that best matches the first feature (closest match, paragraph 0026), the second images being captured prior to use the camera to capturing the first image (paragraph 0014, reference images of the scene are captured and stored (106 of fig. 1) before the tracking system is used); and generating, using the second feature, output indicating a position and/or an orientation of the camera as the camera captured the first image (camera position, paragraph 0026, determining the position and orientation of a camera abstract).
Thomas does not teach the camera is used to insert into a cavity to capture the first image of the surface defining the cavity, compressing the first image, using a compression algorithm, to generate a first feature vector; the plurality of second feature vectors was generated by compressing second images of the surface using the compression algorithm.
Weitzner teaches to insert a camera (camera, column 1, lines 50-51) into a cavity (cavity, column
5, lines 33-34) to capture the first image of the surface defining the cavity (inherent property of a camera, a camera captured light reflected from the surface of the object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have combine
the teaching of Weitzner and Thomas to apply the Thomas’s camera position determination method to
be used with the camera/catheter/probe system such that: the camera is used to insert into a cavity to
capture the first image of the surface defining the cavity.
The reason of doing so would have allowed Thomas’s invention to be able to apply to medical field to benefit humans.
Thomas as modified still does not teach compressing the first image, using a compression
algorithm, to generate a first feature vector; the plurality of second feature vectors was generated by compressing second images of the surface using the compression algorithm.
Iyer teaches to compress image using a compression algorithm (inherent for a processor to perform compression) to generate feature vector (paragraph 0110, compression (e.g., reduction of the image data to feature vectors, etc.)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas/Weitzner to include: compressing the first image, using a compression algorithm, to generate a first feature vector; the plurality of second feature vectors was generated by compressing second images of the surface using the compression algorithm.
The reason of doing so would have allow large volume of image data to be more easily and effectively stored, compared and processed.
Note: after the modification, the matching would be between the second feature vector of a plurality of second feature vectors that best matches the first feature vector to output the position of the camera.
Regarding claim 13: Weitzner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the camera is Integrated into an articulating catheter (articulating tool of the catheter column 2, lines 13-14, also see column 1, line 40-51) configured for extension along an axis (linearly translate Column 2, lines 42-45, extending, column 9, line 35-40), roll about the axis (rotate, column 5, line 2) , and deflection relative to the axis (bend column 5, line 2).
Regarding claim 19: Thomas teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the camera is a first camera (current camera, paragraph 0037), the position is a first position, the orientation is a first orientation (paragraph 2, position and orientation) and the second images comprise a second image (references image paragraph 0014) that corresponds to the second feature vector (matching individually stored features, also see rejection of claim 11), wherein generating the output comprises generating the output such that the output indicates the first position that is equal to a second position of a second camera as the second camera (captured with a camera (102 of fig 1) similar or identical to the camera that is to be tracked note: the camera that is to be tracked is the first camera) captured the second image and indicates the first orientation that is equal to a second orientation of the second camera as the second camera captured the second image (determine which reference image gives the closest match, paragraph 26, implies in ideal situation, the matched reference image would have their position and orientation match the captured image of the tracking camera as much as possible).
Regarding claim 24: Thomas teaches the method of claim 11, wherein generating the output comprises storing the output (paragraph 44, whereby the image database is refined, corrected or added to whilst the system is tracking the camera position).
Regarding claim 25: see rejection of claim 11 and how Thomas’s camera position detection method is used in the probe system of Weitzner (probe, column 4, line 43).
Weitzner further teaches the probe system has a controller 92 (column 7, line 6) with a stored algorithm (column 7, lines 55-60). Note: inherently the algorithm of the controller inherently would have to be stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium in order for the probe system to ne properly operated.
Regarding claim 26: see rejection of claim 11 and claim 13 and how Thomas’s camera position detection method is used in the probe system of Weitzner (probe, column 4, line 43). Weitzner further teaches the probe system has a controller 92 (column 7, line 6) with a stored algorithm (column 7, lines 55-60). Note: inherently the algorithm of the controller inherently would have to be stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium in order for the probe system to ne properly operated.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Sinusas US 2017/0049518.
Regarding claim 12: Thomas as modified does not teach: wherein the cavity comprises a stomach, a vagina, a bladder, a urinary tract, a uterus, a ureter, a kidney chamber, a heart chamber, a brain ventricle, a gastrointestinal tract, a nasal cavity, a lung, a pipe, a storage tank, a cave, a room
within a building, a cavity within an aircraft engine or within an aircraft wing, or a ceiling plenum space.
Sinusas US 2017/0049518 teaches to use a camera/catheter (paragraph 0088) in heart chamber
and lungs and bladder (paragraph 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas as modified to include: : wherein the cavity comprises a stomach, a vagina, a bladder, a urinary tract, a uterus, a ureter, a kidney chamber, a heart chamber, a brain ventricle, a gastrointestinal tract, a nasal cavity, a lung, a pipe, a storage tank, a cave, a room within a building, a cavity within an aircraft engine or within an aircraft wing, or a ceiling plenum space.
The reason of doing so would have allowed a patient with heart, lung or bladder issue to be properly cared for.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Gates US 2019/0098039.
Regarding claim 14: Thomas as modified does not teach: the method of claim 11, wherein compressing the first image using the compression algorithm comprises performing dimensional reduction upon the first image.
Gates teaches compressing an image using the compression algorithm comprises performing dimensional reduction upon the image (dimension reduction, paragraph 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the compression method of Thomas as modified for the first image such that wherein compressing the first image using the compression algorithm comprises performing dimensional reduction upon the first image.
The reason of using a known method for compression can reduce the cost and time to create other method of compression and at the same time allow the compression to be effectively carry out.
Regarding claim 15: Gates further teaches wherein performing dimensional reduction upon the first image comprises transforming the first image into the first feature vector (see rejection of claim 11 and 14, also see feature vector of Gates, paragraph 0084) having dimensions selected (mapping P feature vectors onto S dimension term vector space, paragraph 0084; note: S is the selected dimension) by performing principal component analysis (paragraph 0084, Principle Component Analysis (PCA)…the information loss using (PCA)…) on the second images.
Note: both the first image and the second image are to be compressed into feature vector, (see rejection of claim 11) and the second image is selected based on the closest matching of feature vectors to the first image’s feature vectors. Therefore, both the feature vector of the first image and the second image are ideally having the same selected dimension using the compression method of Gates.
Regarding claim 16: Gates further teaches wherein performing dimensional reduction upon the first image further comprises performing singular value decomposition upon the first image. (singular value decomposition, paragraph 0084, paragraph 0115).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Wang US 2018/0349728
Regarding claim 17: Thomas as modified does not teach identifying the second feature vector comprises determining that a Euclidean distance between the first feature vector and the second feature vector is smaller than any Euclidean distance between the first feature vector and other second feature vectors of the plurality of second feature vectors.
Wang, paragraph 45 teaches: ….the reference descriptor vectors are also 7-dimension feature vectors….The reference descriptor vector having the smallest (e.g., smallest Euclidean distance) from the path descriptor vector in the feature space is a match template image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas’s modified image vector matching method of identifying a second image from a plurality of second images having feature vectors that matches the feature vectors of a first image such that identifying the second feature vector comprises determining that a Euclidean distance between the first feature vector and the second feature vector is smaller than any Euclidean distance between the first feature vector and other second feature vectors of the plurality of second feature vectors.
The reason of doing so would have allowed matching images to be performed quickly, effectively and accurately.
Claim(s) 18, 23, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Buharin US 2022/0020160.
Regarding claims 18, 27, 28: Thomas as modified does not teach wherein generating the output comprises graphically indicating the position and/or the orientation of the camera relative to a three-dimensional model of the surface generated using the second images.
Thomas teaches teach wherein generating the output comprises indicating the position and/or the orientation of the camera relative to a three-dimensional model of the surface generated using the second images (see rejection of claims 11, 25, 26).
Buharin teaches generating the output comprises graphically indicating the position and/or the orientation of the camera relative to a three-dimensional model of the surface (paragraph 0037, arrow 404 indicate the direction of the camera relative to the anatomical model, 0039 3D reconstruction, paragraph 0040 and fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas as modified to include: wherein generating the output comprises graphically indicating the position and/or the orientation of the camera relative to a three-dimensional model of the surface generated using the second images.
The reason of doing so would have allowed the Doctors clearly understand the situation and environment within the patient’s body so that the Doctor can performed what needs to be done effectively and accurately to cure the patient.
Regarding claim 23: Weitzner teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the camera is Integrated into an articulating catheter (articulating tool of the catheter column 2, lines 13-14, also see column 1, line 40-51) configured for extension along an axis (linearly translate Column 2, lines 42-45, extending, column 9, line 35-40), roll about the axis (rotate, column 5, line 2), and deflection relative to the axis (bend column 5, line 2).
Thomas as modified does not teach: based on the output/camera’s position to control the action of the catheter.
Buharin teaches based on the output/camera’s position to control the action of the catheter (paragraph 0053, catheter, fig. 4, paragraph 0037, arrow 404 indicate the direction of the camera relative to the anatomical model, paragraph 0023, provides the surgeon with high-definition image which allows for increased accuracy and vision, paragraph 0024, normal movement associates with a given surgery, Robotic arms carry out those movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas as modified to further include: determining, based on the output, an action that includes extending, retracting, rolling, or deflecting a catheter that houses the camera; and causing the catheter to perform the action.
The reason of doing so would have allowed a surgery or movement of the catheter for increased accuracy.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Wang US 5812705.
Regarding claim 20: Thomas as modified teaches: wherein the second images comprise a second image that corresponds to the second feature vector (see rejection of claim 11), the method further comprising: determining the position and/or orientation to the first image which maps the second image to a three-dimensional model of the surface, wherein generating the output comprise generating the output such that the output indicating the position and/or orientation (see rejection of claim 11).
Thomas as modified does not teach: determining the position and/or orientation to the first image by applying a transfer function to the first image maps the second image to a three-dimensional model of the surface, wherein generating the output comprise generating the output such that the output indicating the position and/or orientation as provided by applying the first transfer function to the first image.
Wang teaches applying a transfer function to a first image (production image, abstract) resulting in its alignment to the second image (reference image).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas as modified such that while determining the position and/or orientation to the first image which maps the second image to a three-dimensional model of the surface; they system also applies a transfer function to the first image such that the first image can align with the second image which maps the position of the objects/features of the first image to the position of the objects/features of the second image.
The result of doing so would have allow the system to accurately matching the first image to the second image to determine the position/orientation of the camera.
Note: after the further modification, the output indicating the position and/or orientation is provided by the applying the first transfer function to the first image.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Liu US 2018/0089831.
Regarding claim 21: Thomas as modified does not teach: receiving, via a telecommunications network, a command for the camera to move such that the camera has the position and the orientation; and adjusting, in response to receiving the command, the camera such that the camera has the position and the orientation, wherein capturing the first image comprises capturing the first image while the camera has the position and the orientation.
Liu teaches: receiving, via a telecommunications network (telecommunication system, paragraph 0096), a command for the camera to move such that the camera has the position and the orientation (calibrated to permit transformation of coordinate between image coordinate space of camera 110, the coordinate spaces of robot 105 and the coordinate space of calibration target 120. Using the calibration, control system can direct robot hand 160 to precise locations in the coordinate space of the calibration target 120, note: as in fig. 1, the position and orientation of the camera 110 is the same as robot arm 160); and adjusting, in response to receiving the command, the camera such that the camera has the position and the orientation, wherein capturing the first image comprises capturing the first image while the camera has the position and the orientation (inherently, the camera while taking pictures has to be in a certain position and orientation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Thomas to include: receiving, via a telecommunications network, a command for the camera to move such that the camera has the position and the orientation; and adjusting, in response to receiving the command, the camera such that the camera has the position and the orientation, wherein capturing the first image comprises capturing the first image while the camera has the position and the orientation.
The reason of doing so would have allowed the position and orientation of the camera can be detected while the camera is at a certain importation position and orientation in relation to a targeted image that the user is urgent to find out such that the operation of a patient by the user can be accurately performed.
Claim(s) 22, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas US 2005/0190972 in view of Weitzner US 7766894 and Iyer US 2021/0283717 and further in view of Nojoomi US 2022/0401145.
Regarding claims 22, 29, 30. Thomas as modified does not teach the functions further comprising transmitting the output via a telecommunications network.
Nojoomi teaches the output functions further comprising transmitting the output via a telecommunications network (telecommunication network, paragraph 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Thomas to include: the functions further comprising transmitting the output via a telecommunications network.
The reason of doing so is because telecommunication has proven to provide fast, reliable and efficient way of conducting communication through many years.
Conclusion
Relevant prior art Gruionu US 2019/0388164 paragraph 0063, 0067 and 0068 teaches movement of the catheter based on locations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KING Y POON whose telephone number is (571)270-0728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights