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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 5/18/2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 5/18/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tool holder” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
According to the published instant specification ¶ [0225], the “[T]he surgical tool tracking array may include a tool holder that couples a portion of a surgical tool 2300 to the surgical tool tracking array.” The only illustrated feature that meets this description is the bar/rod that annotated from FIG. 23.
PNG
media_image1.png
899
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Yano et al. (“Development of a Surgical Knife Attachment with Proximity Indicators,” (14 May 2017), In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Designing Pleasurable Experiences. DUXU 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10289; hereinafter "Yano") and in further view of Colmenares et al. (US PAT 10949986; hereinafter "Colmenares").
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 (cuboid optical marker with different 2D QR codes on one or more surfaces; see Lang ¶ [0419]);
wherein the multi-faced reference array is attached to a portion of a surgical tool to the surgical tool tracking array (wherein optical marker is attached to a surgical tool; see Lang ¶ [0426 & 0434-0438]), wherein the plurality of coded patterns are configured to be tracked by a tracking system, the tracking system including:
first and second cameras and
a third camera (the optical markers are tracked by a camera system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]).
Lang teaches of a magnetic base which is adhesively attached to the skin or surgical drape, said magnetic base for magnetically receiving the optical marker array (see Lang ¶ [0444 & 0446]). Lang also teaches of attaching the optical marker array to surgical tool (see Lang ¶ [0426]). While it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill to combine the magnetic base with the surgical tool to provide a tool holder, wherein the tool holder is configured to space the multi-faced reference array away from a handle of the surgical tool, and cameras receptive to visible light. Lang also teaches of two or more cameras, but may be silent to said cameras receptive to visible light and the optically coded patterns recognizable in visible light.
However, Yano teaches of surgical knife {i.e. surgical tool} attachment clamp {tool holder} with a cubicle array of markers (see Yano FIGS. 2-3) tracked by MicronTracker by ClaroNav which is a stereoscopic optical marker tracking system that operates in the visible spectrum as illustrated in FIG. 11 (see also Yano pg. 609, ¶ 2). In particular, FIG. 3 clearly illustrates that the attachment clamp {i.e. tool holder} clearly spaces out the cuboid marker array from the handle {i.e. which is clearly held by the user} of the surgical knife at the distal tip.
Lang and Yano are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical tracking surgical tools with navigation 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 modified Lang to incorporate the above teachings of Yano to provide at least wherein the tool holder is configured to space the multi-faced reference array away from a handle of the surgical tool. Doing so would aid in easy attachment to the knife or other surgical tools (see Yano pg. 609, ¶ 3).
While modified Lang 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 from the first imaginary line such that the three cameras form a triangle
However, Colmenares, previously cited in the parent US16/896,553, teaches of an imaging system 100 having at least three cameras 114 for optical tracking, wherein the trackers 114 can operate in the visible or infrared spectrum (see Colmenares col. 4, lines 27-36).
PNG
media_image2.png
1104
1394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Lang and Colmenares are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical tool tracking. 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 Colmenares to provide at least the struck-through limitations detailed above. Doing so would enable a larger field of view (see Colmenares col. 10, lines 44-67 cont. col. 11, lines 1-14).
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]);
attachment means which couples a portion of a surgical tool to the surgical tool tracking array (wherein optical marker is attached to a surgical tool; see Lang ¶ [0426 & 0434-0438], wherein the presence of an attachment amounts to an attachment means).
wherein the multi-faced reference array includes a plurality of planar faces, the plurality of planar faces comprise a front square planar face configured to face away from the surgical tool when coupled to the tool holder (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 different side edges of the front square planar face and angled toward the surgical tool when coupled to the tool holder (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 surgical tool tracking array is operationally coupled to a camera tracking system (using a camera system to localize the optical marker; see Lang ¶ [0437]) and a surgical robot (the instruments are attached to robotic arms; see Lang ¶ [0156 & 1368]), the camera tracking system including:
first and second cameras and
a third camera (the optical markers are tracked by a camera system with two or more cameras; see Lang ¶ [0437]).
Lang teaches of a magnetic base which is adhesively attached to the skin or surgical drape, said magnetic base for magnetically receiving the optical marker array (see Lang ¶ [0444 & 0446]). Lang also teaches of attaching the optical marker array to surgical tool (see Lang ¶ [0426]). While it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill to combine the magnetic base with the surgical tool to provide a tool holder, it appears that Lang may be silent to wherein the tool holder is configured to space the multi-faced reference array away from a handle of the surgical tool.
However, Yano teaches of surgical knife {i.e. surgical tool} attachment clamp {tool holder} with a cubicle array of markers (see Yano FIGS. 2-3). In particular, FIG. 3 clearly illustrates that the attachment clamp {i.e. tool holder} clearly spaces out the cuboid marker array from the handle {i.e. which is clearly held by the user} of the surgical knife at the distal tip.
Lang and Yano are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optical tracking surgical tools with navigation 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 modified Lang to incorporate the above teachings of Yano to provide at least wherein the tool holder is configured to space the multi-faced reference array away from a handle of the surgical tool. Doing so would aid in easy attachment to the knife or other surgical tools (see Yano pg. 609, ¶ 3).
While modified Lang 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 from the first imaginary line such that the three cameras form a triangle
However, Colmenares, previously cited in the parent US16/896,553, teaches of an imaging system 100 having at least three cameras 114 for optical tracking, wherein the trackers 114 can operate in the visible or infrared spectrum (see Colmenares col. 4, lines 27-36).
PNG
media_image2.png
1104
1394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Lang and Colmenares are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of surgical tool tracking. 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 Colmenares to provide at least the struck-through limitations detailed above. Doing so would enable a larger field of view (see Colmenares col. 10, lines 44-67 cont. col. 11, lines 1-14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 argues that neither Lang nor Yano teaches of the newly recited claim limitations. While Yano teaches of a MicronTracker by ClaroNav which is a stereoscopic optical marker tracking system that operates in the visible spectrum as illustrated in FIG. 1, neither Lang nor Yano teach or suggest of a tracking system with three cameras. However, as cited in the parent US16/896,553, the Office previously cited Colmenares which teaches of an imaging system 100 having at least three cameras 114 for optical tracking, wherein the trackers 114 can operate in the visible or infrared spectrum (see Colmenares col. 4, lines 27-36).
Conclusion
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 9:00 am - 5:00 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 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 M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20170313214229/http://www.claronav.com/microntracker/
Prosecution Insights