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 .
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.
Claims 31, 34, and 35 are 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.
Regarding claim 31, line 1 of claim 31 recites “The method of claim 11”. However claim 11 has been canceled therefore it is unclear what subject matter the claim is dependent on. Due to the recitation of “said end value of the second predetermined range” in claim 31, claim 31 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 30.
Regarding claim 34, line 1 of claim 34 recites “The method of claim 13”. However claim 13 has been canceled therefore it is unclear what subject matter the claims are dependent on. Due to the recitation of “the first acoustic property” and “the second acoustic property” in claim 34, claim 34 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 32.
Regarding claim 35, line 1 of claim 35 recites “The method of claim 15”. However claim 15 has been canceled therefore it is unclear what subject matter the claims are dependent on. Due to the recitation of “the first predetermined target adjustment” and “the third predetermined range” in claim 35, claim 35 will be interpreted as being dependent on claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, lines 1-3 of claim 35 recite “when the tool deviates from the first predetermined target adjustment in the first dimension beyond a predefined tolerance, the first acoustic property stops varying within the third predetermined range and retakes varying within the first predetermined range”. However as recited above claim 35 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 34 which recites “when the tool reaches the first predetermined target adjustment in the first dimension or reaches the second predetermined target adjustment in the second dimension: the first acoustic property varies within a third predetermined range different from the first predetermined range towards one end value of the third predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the third dimension”. Therefore claim 34 claims that in the case that the tool reaches the second predetermined target adjustment in the second dimension the first acoustic property varies within a third predetermined range different from the first predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the third dimension. As claimed the first acoustic property can change to vary within a third predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the third dimension even when the tool has not reached the first predetermined target adjustment in the first dimension. Therefore in the case of the tool only reaching the second predetermined target adjustment in the second dimension it is unclear when the first acoustic property would stop varying within the third predetermined range and retake varying within the first predetermined range. For examination purposes lines 14-15 of claim 34 will be interpreted to recite “wherein, when the tool reaches the first predetermined target adjustment in the first dimension and reaches the second predetermined target adjustment in the second dimension”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20-24, 32-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wegner (US 6083163).
Regarding claim 20, Wegner discloses a method for generating an acoustic calibration signal for adjusting a tool in a plurality of dimensions, each dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponding to a respective degree of freedom of the tool (Figs. 1 and 7, Abstract – “Error signals which correspond to deviations of the actual instrument trajectory from an optimal trajectory stored in a computer memory are translated into a set of audio signals that indicate to the user whether correction is required”, Fig. 7 shows deviation signals in three degrees of freedom), wherein the method comprises:
generating an acoustic calibration signal with a plurality of simultaneously perceivable acoustic properties comprising an acoustic property for each dimension of the plurality of dimensions (Fig. 7, Col. 3 lines 46-50 – “each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”), wherein at least one acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties corresponds to one of pitch, pulsing frequency, duty cycle, loudness, and tone colour of the acoustic calibration signal, wherein at least another acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties corresponds to another one of pitch, pulsing frequency, duty cycle, loudness and tone colour of the acoustic calibration signal (Fig. 7 shows the audio for each of the x, y, and z coordinates having a different frequency and therefore having a different pitch, Col. 3 lines 46-50 – “each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”),
wherein each acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties varies towards a corresponding predetermined value when the tool is being adjusted in the corresponding dimension towards a corresponding predetermined target adjustment (Fig. 7, Col. 9 lines 44-54 – “A GUI allowed the user to specify the radii of the MIDI error envelopes, sound programs, pitch, and amplitude. A number of AIFF Samples of recorded speech and sound effects were provided. The user could set the Sample Volume, playback triggering radius from the target path center in the y, Z plane, and the point along the target path in the X axis where playback would occur. AS the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic Stability is attained”).
Regarding claim 21, Wegner further discloses wherein each acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties varies away from the corresponding predetermined value when the tool is being adjusted in the corresponding dimension away from the corresponding predetermined target adjustment (Fig. 7 shows the audio for each of the x, y, and z coordinates having a different frequency and varying as the error increases or decreases, Col. 9 lines 44-54 – “A GUI allowed the user to specify the radii of the MIDI error envelopes, sound programs, pitch, and amplitude. A number of AIFF Samples of recorded speech and sound effects were provided. The user could set the Sample Volume, playback triggering radius from the target path center in the y, Z plane, and the point along the target path in the X axis where playback would occur. AS the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic Stability is attained”).
Regarding claim 22, Wegner further discloses wherein at least one dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponds to a translational degree of freedom, a rotational degree of freedom or an orientational degree of freedom of the tool, and wherein at least another dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponds to another translational degree of freedom, rotational degree of freedom or orientational degree of freedom of the tool (Col. 3 lines 48-53 – “this can be a consonant harmonic Structure, Such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate. In the present invention spatial coordinates are broadly considered as positional (X-y-Z) or angular coordinate, acceleration or others”).
Regarding claim 23, Wegner further discloses wherein at least one acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties is kept constant while the tool remains adjusted in the corresponding dimension at the corresponding predetermined target adjustment (Col. 9 lines 51-54 – “As the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic stability is attained”).
Regarding claim 24, Wegner further discloses wherein the method further comprises, for at least one dimension of the plurality of dimensions, generating an acoustic marker when the tool reaches the corresponding predetermined target adjustment in said at least one dimension, in particular within a predefined tolerance (Col. 3 lines 48-50 – “this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”, Col. 9 lines 51-54 – “As the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic stability is attained”).
Regarding claim 32, Wegner further discloses wherein the plurality of dimensions comprises a first dimension corresponding to a first degree of freedom of the tool and a second dimension corresponding to a second degree of freedom of the tool, wherein the plurality of acoustic properties comprises a first acoustic property and a second acoustic property different from the first acoustic property, wherein the first and second acoustic properties are simultaneously perceivable acoustic properties (Col. 3 lines 45-53 – “in the system of the present invention each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the Surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, Such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate. In the present invention spatial coordinates are broadly considered as positional (X-Y-Z) or angular coordinate, acceleration or others”).
Regarding claim 33, Wegner further discloses wherein the plurality of dimensions further comprises a third dimension corresponding to a third degree of freedom of the tool, wherein the plurality of acoustic properties further comprises a third acoustic property different from the first and second acoustic properties, wherein the first, second and third acoustic properties are simultaneously perceivable acoustic properties (Col. 3 lines 45-53 – “in the system of the present invention each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the Surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, Such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate. In the present invention spatial coordinates are broadly considered as positional (X-Y-Z) or angular coordinate, acceleration or others”).
Regarding claim 36, Wegner discloses a method for adjusting a tool in a plurality of dimensions, each dimension of the plurality of dimensions corresponding to a degree of freedom of the tool (Fig. 7, Abstract – “Error signals which correspond to deviations of the actual instrument trajectory from an optimal trajectory stored in a computer memory are translated into a set of audio signals that indicate to the user whether correction is required”, Col. 4 lines 1-2 – “assisting a Surgeon in positioning an article relative to a surgical target path in a patient”, Fig. 7 shows deviation signals in three degrees of freedom), wherein the method comprises:
generating an acoustic calibration signal with a plurality of simultaneously perceivable acoustic properties comprising an acoustic property for each dimension of the plurality of dimensions (Fig. 7, Col. 3 lines 46-50 – “each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”), wherein at least one acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties corresponds to one of pitch, pulsing frequency, duty cycle, loudness, and tone colour of the acoustic calibration signal, wherein at least another acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties corresponds to another one of pitch, pulsing frequency, duty cycle, loudness and tone colour of the acoustic calibration signal (Fig. 7 shows the audio for each of the x, y, and z coordinates having a different frequency and therefore having a different pitch, Col. 3 lines 46-50 – “each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”), wherein each acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties varies towards a corresponding predetermined value when the tool is being adjusted in the corresponding dimension towards a corresponding predetermined target adjustment (Fig. 7, Col. 9 lines 44-54 – “A GUI allowed the user to specify the radii of the MIDI error envelopes, sound programs, pitch, and amplitude. A number of AIFF Samples of recorded speech and sound effects were provided. The user could set the Sample Volume, playback triggering radius from the target path center in the y, Z plane, and the point along the target path in the X axis where playback would occur. AS the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic Stability is attained”); and
adjusting the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions based on the generated acoustic calibration signal (Col. 3 line 25-32 – “assisting a Surgeon in positioning an article relative to a Surgical target path in a patient comprises: means for determining a Surgical target path based upon input patient information; Sensor means for sensing surgical execution of a surgical target path by the surgeon; and audio feedback means for real-time advising the surgeon based upon a comparison of the surgical target path and the sensed surgical execution”), such that for a plurality of acoustic properties of the generated acoustic calibration signal, each acoustic property varies towards a corresponding predetermined value until each acoustic property reaches the corresponding predetermined value (Fig. 7, Col. 9 lines 44-54 – “A GUI allowed the user to specify the radii of the MIDI error envelopes, sound programs, pitch, and amplitude. A number of AIFF Samples of recorded speech and sound effects were provided. The user could set the Sample Volume, playback triggering radius from the target path center in the y, Z plane, and the point along the target path in the X axis where playback would occur. AS the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic Stability is attained”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegner (US 6083163) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Rodrigues (US 20210007774).
Regarding claim 25, Wegner discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 20 and 24.
Conversely Wegner does not teach wherein the at least one generated acoustic marker corresponds to a discontinuous variation of the corresponding acoustic property by 5% or more.
However Rodrigues discloses wherein the at least one generated acoustic marker corresponds to a discontinuous variation of the corresponding acoustic property by 5% or more ([0164] – “generate warning tones when an optical tracked drill is closer to the target (tones of 300 Hz) or reaching the target (tones of 900 Hz)”).
The disclosure of Rodrigues is an analogous art considering it is in the field of surgical guidance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wegner to incorporate the generated acoustic marker corresponding to a discontinuous variation of Rodrigues to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would provide a clear indication of when the target position has been reached.
Regarding claim 26, Wegner discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 20 and 24.
Conversely Wegner does not teach wherein the at least one generated acoustic marker corresponds to a discontinuous variation of the corresponding acoustic property by 20% or more.
However Rodrigues discloses wherein the at least one generated acoustic marker corresponds to a discontinuous variation of the corresponding acoustic property by 20% or more ([0164] – “generate warning tones when an optical tracked drill is closer to the target (tones of 300 Hz) or reaching the target (tones of 900 Hz)”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wegner to incorporate the generated acoustic marker corresponding to a discontinuous variation of Rodrigues to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would provide a clear indication of when the target position has been reached.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegner (US 6083163) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Abhari (US 20210228283).
Regarding claim 27, Wegner discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 20 and 24.
Conversely Wegner does not teach wherein generating the at least one acoustic marker comprises generating a corresponding additional acoustic signal different from the acoustic calibration signal.
However Abhari discloses wherein generating the at least one acoustic marker comprises generating a corresponding additional acoustic signal different from the acoustic calibration signal ([0092] – “the audio output may include a first pitch representing the desired position and orientation and a second pitch that changes based on the tracked position and orientation of the medical instrument”).
The disclosure of Abhari is an analogous art considering it is in the field of providing audio feedback for positioning a surgical instrument.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wegner to incorporate the different acoustic signal for the marker of Abhari to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because the difference in acoustic signal would provide a more obvious indication that the instrument is in the target position.
Claims 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegner (US 6083163).
Regarding claim 28, Wegner discloses wherein at least one acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties varies within a corresponding predetermined range towards one end value of said corresponding predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the respective dimension towards the corresponding predetermined target adjustment (although it is not explicitly disclosed in the specification of Wegner Fig. 7 appears to show ranges of frequency for the error from a to b. Based on the bottom right hand corner of Fig. 7 it can be interpreted that the target frequency is frequency a and the frequency diverges to frequency +b or -b depending on the direction of deviation. Therefore it would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to vary the acoustic signal within a predetermined range toward an end value of frequency a when the tool is being adjusted towards the target position).
Regarding claim 30, Wegner discloses wherein at least a first acoustic property and a second acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties correspond to pitch, wherein the first acoustic property varies within a first predetermined range towards an end value of the first predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the first dimension towards a first predetermined target adjustment, and wherein the second acoustic property varies within a second predetermined range different from the first predetermined range towards one end value of the second predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the second dimension towards a second predetermined target adjustment (Col. 3 lines 48-53 – “this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate. In the present invention spatial coordinates are broadly considered as positional (X-Y-Z) or angular coordinate, acceleration or others.”, although the predetermined range is not explicitly disclosed in the specification of Wegner Fig. 7 appears to show ranges of frequency for the error from a to b. Based on the bottom right hand corner of Fig. 7 it can be interpreted that the target frequency is frequency a and the frequency diverges to frequency +b or -b depending on the direction of deviation. Therefore it would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to vary each acoustic signal within a predetermined range toward an end value of frequency a when the tool is being adjusted towards the target position).
Regarding claim 31, Wegner discloses wherein said end value of the second predetermined range is an octave, a perfect fifth or a perfect fourth of said end value of the first predetermined range (Col. 9 lines 51-54 – “As the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic stability is attained”, a consonant triad contains a perfect fifth).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegner (US 6083163) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Otto (US 20220022994).
Regarding claim 29, Wegner discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 20 and 24.
As cited above Wegner uses frequency ranges as feedback when there is a deviation in the position of the instrument conversely Wegner does not teach wherein generating the at least one acoustic marker comprises replacing the corresponding predetermined range by a new corresponding predetermined range different from said corresponding predetermined range.
However Wegner and Otto can be combined to teach wherein generating the at least one acoustic marker comprises replacing the corresponding predetermined range by a new corresponding predetermined range different from said corresponding predetermined range (Otto discloses in [0090] – “the GUI 44 may produce a first feedback type 228 in response to the controller 18 determining that the position 22 of the first object or tracker 12 is not within or outside of the first zone 32”, and in [0095] – “the GUI 44 may produce the second feedback type 218 in response to the controller 18 determining that the position 22 of the first object or tracker 12 is within the first zone 32”, therefore if the frequency ranges of Wegner are used as feedback signals it would be obvious to use a first predetermined range [marker] when the instrument is within the target region and a second predetermined range when the instrument is outside of the target region).
The disclosure of Otto is an analogous art considering it is in the field of surgical guidance.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wegner to incorporate a different acoustic signal range for the marker of Otto to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to determine when they are within a threshold distance to the target.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wegner (US 6083163) and further in view of Wapler (US 20210212767).
Regarding claim 37, Wegner discloses an alignment system for adjusting a tool in a plurality of dimensions, each dimension corresponding to a degree of freedom of the tool (Figs. 3 and 7, Abstract – “A computer based system and method is disclosed for positional guidance in real-time surgical applications using audio feedback…Error signals which correspond to deviations of the actual instrument trajectory from an optimal trajectory stored in a computer memory are translated into a set of audio signals that indicate to the user whether correction is required”, Fig. 7 shows deviation signals in three degrees of freedom), wherein the system comprises:
an adjustment unit (Fig. 3 groups B, C, and D) configured for:
generating an acoustic calibration signal with a plurality of simultaneously perceivable acoustic properties comprising an acoustic property for each dimension of the plurality of dimensions (Fig. 7, Col. 3 lines 46-50 – “each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”), wherein at least one acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties corresponds to one of pitch, pulsing frequency, duty cycle, loudness, and tone colour of the acoustic calibration signal, wherein at least another acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties corresponds to another one of pitch, pulsing frequency, duty cycle, loudness and tone colour of the acoustic calibration signal (Fig. 7 shows the audio for each of the x, y, and z coordinates having a different frequency and therefore having a different pitch, Col. 3 lines 46-50 – “each of the two or more coordinates of the audio space may correspond to an audio theme recognizable by the surgeon. Thus, for example, this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”), wherein each acoustic property of the plurality of acoustic properties varies towards a corresponding predetermined value when the tool is being adjusted in the corresponding dimension towards a corresponding predetermined target adjustment (Fig. 7, Col. 9 lines 44-54 – “A GUI allowed the user to specify the radii of the MIDI error envelopes, sound programs, pitch, and amplitude. A number of AIFF Samples of recorded speech and sound effects were provided. The user could set the Sample Volume, playback triggering radius from the target path center in the y, Z plane, and the point along the target path in the X axis where playback would occur. AS the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic Stability is attained”),
wherein the target state […] corresponds to a state in which the tool is adjusted in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions to the corresponding predetermined target adjustment (Col. 3 lines 25-26 – “assisting a surgeon in positioning an article relative to a surgical target path in a patient”, the abstract discloses a surgical instrument or device being adjusted, Figs. 6-8 shows that the instrument is guided in three dimensions).
Conversely Wegner does not teach a plurality of spatial markers arrangeable on the tool for marking a state of the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions;
a detection system configured for registering the state of the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions marked by the spatial markers;
a mapping unit for determining a target state of the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions with respect to a target reference frame; and
the target state determined by the mapping unit.
However Wapler discloses a plurality of spatial markers arrangeable on the tool for marking a state of the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions ([0056] – “optical tracker 16 attached to a surgical instrument 18”, Fig. 1 shows multiple markers on the optical tracker 16 that is attached to the instrument, [0065] – “determines the pose of the surgical instrument 18 by tracking the optical tracker 16 in the first tracking coordinate system 10”, [0064] – “The current orientation describes an alignment of the surgical instrument 18 in the coordinate system, for example three dimensional coordinates of the axis 24”);
a detection system configured for registering the state of the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions marked by the spatial markers ([0056] – “The optical tracking system 6 is configured to track optical trackers such as an optical tracker 12 attached to a patient 14 and an optical tracker 16 attached to a surgical instrument 18”, para. [0065] discloses that the “the optical tracking system 6 determines the pose of the surgical instrument 18 by tracking the optical tracker 16 in the first tracking coordinate system 10” and that a transformation between coordinate systems is used to determine the pose of the instrument by performing a registration);
a mapping unit for determining a target state of the tool in each dimension of the plurality of dimensions with respect to a target reference frame ([0072] – “A planned trajectory 54 extending between the planned entry point 48 and the planned target 50, in the shown example between the planned entry point 48 and the planned target point 52, can also be determined based on the planning data”); and
the target state determined by the mapping unit ([0072] – “A planned trajectory 54 extending between the planned entry point 48 and the planned target 50, in the shown example between the planned entry point 48 and the planned target point 52, can also be determined based on the planning data”).
The disclosure of Wapler is an analogous art considering it is in the field of providing audio feedback for positioning a surgical instrument.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wegner to incorporate the spatial markers and detection system of Wapler to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “positions and orientations of surgical objects, such as the surgical instrument and the patient, can be determined as a basis for providing navigation instructions to the surgeon” (Wapler [0003]).
Regarding claim 38, Wegner and Wapler disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 37.
Wegner further discloses wherein the adjustment unit is further configured for generating the acoustic calibration signal such that each acoustic property varies away from said corresponding predetermined value when the tool is being adjusted in said corresponding dimension away from said predetermined target adjustment (although Fig. 7 of Wegner is not explained in detail in the specification Fig. 7 appears to show ranges of frequency for the error from a to b. Based on the bottom right hand corner of Fig. 7 it can be interpreted that the target frequency is frequency a and the frequency diverges to frequency +b or -b depending on the direction of deviation. Therefore it would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to vary each acoustic signal within a predetermined range away from a target frequency a when the tool is being adjusted away from the target position).
Regarding claim 39, Wegner and Wapler disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 37.
Wegner further discloses wherein the adjustment unit is further configured for generating, for at least one dimension of the plurality of dimensions, an acoustic marker when the tool reaches the corresponding predetermined target adjustment in said at least one dimension (Col. 3 lines 48-50 – “this can be a consonant harmonic structure, such as a major triad, each tone of which corresponds to values along a specific spatial coordinate”, Col. 9 lines 51-54 – “As the instrument nears its target path, the targeting feedback pitch for X approaches the lowest pitch of the consonant triad, thus, when the target is reached, harmonic stability is attained”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34 and 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 34 and 35 is found to distinguish from the prior art collectively, however, allowability is not determined at this time due to pending 112 issues. Regarding claim 34, Wegner teaches audio feedback for deviation in the x, y, and z directions as cited above. Therefore Wegner teaches a third dimension corresponding to a third degree of freedom of the tool. Wegner teaches in Col. 3 lines 50-53 “In the present invention spatial coordinates are broadly considered as positional (X-Y-Z) or angular coordinate, acceleration or others”. Therefore it would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art to include an angular coordinate as a fourth dimension corresponding to a fourth degree of freedom of the tool. As cited above and as shown in Fig. 7 of Wegner, Wegner teaches the first acoustic property varies within a first predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the first dimension and the second acoustic property varies within a second predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the second dimension. However the cited prior art does not teach when the tool reaches the first predetermined target adjustment in the first dimension or reaches the second predetermined target adjustment in the second dimension the first acoustic property varies within a third predetermined range different from the first predetermined range when the tool is being adjusted in the third dimension towards a third predetermined target adjustment. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the acoustic properties of Wegner, to use a third range for the first acoustic property when the tool reaches the target adjustment in the first dimension or the second dimension. Thus the combination of elements is found to distinguish over the prior art collectively.
Regarding claim 35, as recited in the 112(b) rejection above claim 35 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 34. Claim 35 further limits the subject matter of claim 34 therefore claim 35 cannot be taught by the cited prior art. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the acoustic properties of Wegner, to stop varying the first acoustic property within the third predetermined range and retake varying within the first predetermined range when the tool deviates from the first predetermined target adjustment in the first dimension beyond a predefined tolerance. Thus the combination of elements is found to distinguish over the prior art collectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797