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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 15 September 2026.
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 15 September 2026.
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 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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (US PGPUB 20170258526) in view of Boersma et al. (“PHOTOGRAMMETRICWOUND MEASUREMENT WITH A THREE-CAMERA VISION SYSTEM,” (January 2000) IAPRS, Vol. XXXIII, Amsterdam, 2000; hereinafter "Boersma").
With regards to Claim 1, Lang discloses a surgical tool tracking array (an optical marker; see Lang ¶ [0426]) comprising:
a multi-faced reference array having a plurality of planar faces (cuboid optical marker with different 2D QR codes on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]);
a plurality of different optically coded patterns each on a different one of the planar faces and recognizable in visible light (optical markers configure to reflect light in the visible spectrum (see Lang ¶ [0415]), wherein the optical markers include cuboid optical marker with different 2D QR codes on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]);
a surgical tool configured to be coupled to the multi-faced reference array (wherein optical marker is attached to a surgical tool; see Lang ¶ [0426 & 0434-0438]); and
a tracking system configured to track the plurality of coded patterns (the optical markers are tracked by an image and/or video capture system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]) and including:
first and second cameras (the optical markers are tracked by a camera system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437])
a third camera (the optical markers are tracked by a camera system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]) (optical markers configure to reflect light in the visible spectrum (see Lang ¶ [0415]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the image and video capture system must capture light in the visible spectrum if the optical markers which are to be tracked by said system are reflective in the visible spectrum).
While Lang discloses two or more cameras as detailed directly above, it appears that modified Lang may be silent to: first and second cameras spaced apart and defining an imaginary line between the first and second cameras; and a third camera laterally offset perpendicularly from the first a center of the imaginary line such that the three cameras form a triangle and a distance from the third camera to the first camera is equal to the distance to the second camera.
However, Boersma teaches of a trinocular vision system for generating a digital surface map based on artificial fiducials marks (see Boersma Abstract & pg. 5, ¶ 1). In particular, Boersma teaches of first and second cameras spaced apart and defining an imaginary line between the first and second cameras; and a third camera laterally offset perpendicularly from the first a center of the imaginary line such that the three cameras form a triangle and a distance from the third camera to the first camera is equal to the distance to the second camera (triangular arrangement of cameras in which the cameras are spaced 15cm apart, i.e. equilateral triangle; see Boersma pg. 3, ¶ 3), the three cameras being receptive to visible light (we used three Sony XC-55 progressive scan video cameras; see Boersma pg. 2, ¶ 6).
Lang and Boersma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-camera medical vision systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lang to incorporate the above teachings of Boersma to provide at least the limitations detailed directly above. Doing so would aid in improving reliability (see Boersma pg7, ¶ 4).
With regards to Claim 21, modified Lang teaches of wherein:
the planar faces include a front square planar face configured to face away from the surgical tool when coupled to the tool holder, and a plurality of side square planar faces each extending from different side edges of the front square planar face and angled toward the surgical tool when coupled to the tool holder (cube/cuboid {i.e. plurality of side square planar faces} optical marker with different 2D QR codes {i.e. planar} on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an attached cuboid optical marker would have at least one of the 6 faces oriented substantially away from the attached tool while all the other faces angled toward to the surgical tool, it should be appreciated that the instant specification fails to provide a special definition or scope of “fac[ing] away” as described in ¶ [0225] with relation to FIG. 23).
With regards to 31, modified Lang teaches of wherein:
the planar faces include a front square planar face configured to face away from the surgical tool when coupled to the tool holder, and four side square planar faces each extending from different ones of the four side edges of the front square planar face and angled toward the surgical tool when coupled to the tool holder (cube/cuboid {i.e. four side square planar faces} optical marker with different 2D QR codes {i.e. planar} on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an attached cuboid optical marker would have at least one of the 6 faces oriented substantially away from the attached tool while all the other faces angled toward to the surgical tool, it should be appreciated that the instant specification fails to provide a special definition or scope of “fac[ing] away” as described in ¶ [0225] with relation to FIG. 23).
With regards to Claim 41, modified Lang teaches of wherein the optically coded patterns are two dimensional barcode patterns (cuboid optical marker with different 2D QR codes on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]) which optically encode planar face identifiers (QR codes can be used to determine the orientation of select surfaces or faces of the geometric shape, i.e. optical encode planar face identifiers; see Lang ¶ [0419]).
With regards to Claim 5, Lang discloses a surgical tool tracking array (an optical marker; see Lang ¶ [0426]) comprising:
a multi-faced reference array (cuboid optical marker with different 2D QR codes on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]);
a surgical tool configured to be coupled to the multifaced reference array (wherein optical marker is attached to a surgical tool; see Lang ¶ [0426 & 0434-0438]);
wherein the multi-faced reference array includes a plurality of planar faces, the plurality of planar faces including a front square planar face configured to face away from the surgical tool (cuboid {i.e. four side square planar faces} optical marker with different 2D QR codes {i.e. planar} on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an attached cuboid optical marker would have at least one of the 6 faces oriented substantially away from the attached tool while all the other faces angled toward to the surgical tool, it should be appreciated that the instant specification fails to provide a special definition or scope of “fac[ing] away” as described in ¶ [0225] with relation to FIG. 23);
wherein the planar faces further comprise a plurality of side square planar faces each extending from a different side edge of the front square planar face and angled toward the surgical tool (cuboid {i.e. four side square planar faces} optical marker with different 2D QR codes {i.e. planar} on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an attached cuboid optical marker would have at least one of the 6 faces oriented substantially away from the attached tool while all the other faces angled toward to the surgical tool, it should be appreciated that the instant specification fails to provide a special definition or scope of “fac[ing] away” as described in ¶ [0225] with relation to FIG. 23);
a surgical robot (the instruments are attached to robotic arms; see Lang ¶ [0156 & 1368]);
a camera tracking system (the optical markers are tracked by an image and/or video capture system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]) coupled to the surgical robot and configured to track the plurality of coded patterns (the instruments are attached to robotic arms; see Lang ¶ [0156 & 1368]), the camera tracking system including:
first and second cameras (the optical markers are tracked by a camera system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]) and
a third camera (the optical markers are tracked by a camera system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]) (optical markers configure to reflect light in the visible spectrum (see Lang ¶ [0415]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the image and video capture system must capture light in the visible spectrum if the optical markers which are to be tracked by said system are reflective in the visible spectrum).
While Lang discloses two or more cameras as detailed directly above, it appears that modified Lang may be silent to: first and second cameras spaced apart and defining an imaginary line between the first and second cameras; and a third camera laterally offset perpendicularly from the first a center of the imaginary line such that the three cameras form a triangle and a distance from the third camera to the first camera is equal to the distance to the second camera, the three cameras being receptive to visible light.
However, Boersma teaches of a trinocular vision system for generating a digital surface map based on artificial fiducials marks (see Boersma Abstract & pg. 5, ¶ 1). In particular, Boersma teaches of first and second cameras spaced apart and defining an imaginary line between the first and second cameras; and a third camera laterally offset perpendicularly from the first a center of the imaginary line such that the three cameras form a triangle and a distance from the third camera to the first camera is equal to the distance to the second camera (triangular arrangement of cameras in which the cameras are spaced 15cm apart, i.e. equilateral triangle; see Boersma pg. 3, ¶ 3), the three cameras being receptive to visible light (we used three Sony XC-55 progressive scan video cameras; see Boersma pg. 2, ¶ 6).
Lang and Boersma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of multi-camera medical vision systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Lang to incorporate the above teachings of Boersma to provide at least the limitations detailed directly above. Doing so would aid in improving reliability (see Boersma pg7, ¶ 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, Applicant contends Lang in view of Yano and Colmanares do not teach of all of the limitations of newly amended Claim 1. The Office agrees. However, the Office presents Boersma to remedy the shortcomings of Lang as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Malian et al. (“A ROBUST PHOTOGRAMMETRIC SYSTEM FOR WOUND MEASUREMENT,” (2002), International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 34.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights