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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikou (PGPUB Document No. US 2023/0019543).
Regarding claim 1, Nikou teaches a hand-held augmented reality 3D imaging system comprising:
a) at least one portable imaging device capable of emitting and receiving multiple forms of radiation or energy (ultrasound probe (Nikou: 0172));
b) at least one computing device equipped with augmented reality features (“in FIG. 1 the Surgeon 111 is wearing an AR HMD 155 that may, for example, overlay pre-operative image data on the patient or provide surgical planning suggestions.” (Nikou: 0062));
c) at least one tracking mechanism for determining the position and orientation of the imaging device relative to the computing device (“The field-of-view of the cameras can define the extents to which the ultrasound probe may be tracked relative to the HMD orientation and position.” (Nikou: 0172));
d) image processing and reconstruction software for converting captured data into three-dimensional representations; and (Various illumination sources, such as an IR LED light source, can illuminate the scene allowing three-dimensional imaging to occur (Nikou: 0048))
e) at least one real-time data transmission module for transmitting captured data for further processing (The camera system 42 reports this pose information (or images) across a local network 48 to a control system 50 via a communications interface 54 (Nikou: 0183)).
Regarding claim 2, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one portable imaging device utilizes ultrasound waves for imaging (ultrasound (Nikou: 0062)).
Regarding claim 4, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one portable imaging device utilizes X-rays for imaging (X-ray (Nikou: 0062)).
Regarding claim 5, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one portable imaging device utilizes light for imaging (visible light cameras (Nikou: 0048)).
Regarding claim 6, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one tracking mechanism utilizes sensor data from said at least one portable imaging device for determining position and orientation (gyroscopic motion sensors in the ultrasound probe and HMD allow a processor to model the motion of the probe and headset (Nikou: 0173)).
Regarding claim 7, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one tracking mechanism utilizes image tracking techniques for determining position and orientation (object tracking module 68 may use IR and/or image data from the camera system 42 to track the pose of the ultrasound device 18 (Nikou: 0191)).
Regarding claim 8, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one portable imaging device comprises sensors for tracking its position and orientation (inertial and gyroscopic motion sensors in the ultrasound probe and HMD allow a processor to model the motion of the probe and headset (Nikou: 0173)).
Regarding claim 10, Nikou teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one real-time data transmission module transmits captured data to a cloud server for further processing and analysis (the Surgical Computer 150 is connected to a remote server over one or more computer networks (e.g., the Internet). The remote server can be used, for example, for storage of data or execution of computationally intensive processing tasks (Nikou: 0063)).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14 and 15 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5. The limitations of claim(s) 11, 12, 14 and 15 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 5. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 11, 12, 14 and 15. Further, Nikou teaches capturing video frames and overlaying augmented reality elements on a computing device (the Surgeon 111 is wearing an AR HMD 155 that may, for example, overlay pre-operative image data on the patient or provide surgical planning suggestions. (Nikou: 0062)).
Regarding claim 16, Nikou teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the radiation or energy emitted from said at least one portable imaging device is comprised of data created from a secondary device (the HMD is a secondary device to the ultrasound probe (imaging device), wherein the cameras on the HMD device can define the extents to which the ultrasound probe may be tracked relative to the HMD orientation and position (Nikou: 0175)).
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) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikou as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Peri et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0312713).
Regarding claim 3, Nikou does not expressly teach the system of claim 1, wherein said at least one portable imaging device utilizes microwaves for imaging.
Peri teaches microwave imaging (Peri: 0016).
Nikou contained a device which differed the claimed process by the substitution of the steps of utilizing ultrasound for imaging.
Peri teaches the substituted step of utilizing microwave imaging.
Both imaging teachings of Nikou and Peri were known in the art to effectively create images.
Nikou’s use of ultrasound imaging could have been substituted with the microwave imaging teaching of Peri.
The results would have been predictable and resulted in equally creating images. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3. Therefore, the rejection to claim 3 similarly applies to claim 13.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikou as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Kustra et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2019/03366110).
Regarding claim 9, Nikou does not expressly teach but Kustra teaches the system of claim 1, wherein said image processing and reconstruction software employs voxel data processing for generating three-dimensional representations (the image defined by voxels (Kustra: 0064)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Nikou such that the three-dimensional models are defined by voxels as taught by Kustra, because this enables effective representation of 3D data.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikou as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Mihailescu et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2013/0237811).
Regarding claim 17, Nikou does not expressly teach but Mihailescu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the radiation or energy emitted from said at least one portable imaging device comprises ground penetrating radar (Mihailescu: 0064).
Nikou contained a device which differed the claimed process by the substitution of the steps of utilizing ultrasound for imaging.
Mihailescu teaches the substituted step of utilizing ground penetrating radar.
Both imaging teachings of Nikou and Mihailescu were known in the art to effectively create images.
Nikou’s use of ultrasound imaging could have been substituted with the radar teaching of Mihailescu.
The results would have been predictable and resulted in equally creating images. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616