DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Response to Election/Restriction filed on 05/27/2026 regarding Application No. 18/782,896 originally filed on 07/24/2024. This communication is a Non-Final Office Action. Claims 102-109 as filed are currently pending and have been considered as follows:
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the
presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of
which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
“fixed jaws 112” in ¶136. Number 112 is already used for the navigation camera in [0134]. If the jaws are distinct from the camera, assign a different reference number.
“be attached to the distal end of the surgical arm 108” in ¶137. The gripper 110 is carried by the second arm 107; arm 108 carries the reference device 109 ([0134]). Should read arm 107. This also contradicts the rest of [0137], which correctly treats 108 as the reference-device arm.
“imaging the tool 111 and the reference device 114” in ¶138 should read “imaging the tool 111 and the reference device 109”
“the tool 11 and tool tip 114” in ¶138 should read “the tool 111 and tool tip 114”
“calculating a length of the tool 11 as just described” in ¶144 should read “calculating a length of the tool 111 as just described”
Numeral 310 is assigned twice in adjacent sentences in ¶145, first to "a tool assembly 310," then to "a flange 310 configured to be removably attached to a distal end 312." One of these needs a different numeral.
“a distal tip 360 of the pedicle screw 322” in ¶146 should read “a distal tip 360 of the pedicle screw 342”
“determined optically using the camera 360 and the robotic controller” in ¶147. 360 is the pedicle screw distal tip (used as 360 throughout [0146] to [0147]). The camera is not 360.
“optically viewing with the scale markings with the camera 360.” in ¶148. 360 is the pedicle screw distal tip (used as 360 throughout [0146] to [0147]). The camera is not 360.
“a surgical probe 520 held by surgical robotic arm 580” in ¶151 should read “a surgical probe 520 held by surgical robotic arm 508”
“an apparent length LRD-APP between the markers 512 and 514 on the reference device 512.” in ¶151. 512 is the reference device itself, so it cannot also be one of the markers on it. The marker lines were introduced as 514 ([0150]); the pair needs two consistent numerals.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 102 and 104-105 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a second robotic arm” in Claim 104 should read “a second surgical robotic arm”
““the surgical screw” in Claim(s) 104 & 105 should read “the screw.”
“calculates screw pitch” in Claim 102 should read “calculates the thread pitch of the screw.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 107-108 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.
Claim 107 recites that "the indicia are spaced finer than an expected screw pitch." The phrase "an expected screw pitch" renders the scope of the claim unclear because the claim does not establish the reference value against which the spacing of the indicia is measured. The claim does not specify whether the expected screw pitch is the actual thread pitch of the screw being scanned, a nominal pitch associated with that screw, or a smallest pitch among a class or range of screws intended to be accommodated. Because a given spacing of indicia may be finer than one such pitch but not finer than another, it cannot be determined what spacing of indicia satisfies the limitation, and the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 108 recites the limitation "the scale indicia." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 108 depends from claim 103, and neither claim 103 nor claim 102, from which claim 103 depends, recites a scale or indicia. A linear scale having indicia is first set forth in claim 106, which depends separately from claim 103 and does not fall within the chain from which claim 108 depends. It is therefore unclear whether the method of claim 108 requires the linear scale and indicia recited in claim 106 or refers to some other structure, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 102 & 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. No. 20210275260) in view of Min (NPL Title: Measurement method of screw thread geometric error based on machine vision, Year 2018).
As per Claim 102, Kang discloses of a robot spine surgery, comprising:
providing a screw having a screw thread with a thread pitch and configured to be rotationally inserted into bone; (as per “During the surgical procedure, such as a spinal fusion surgery, a surgeon may insert one or more pedicle screws PS through pedicle regions into a vertebral body 100 of vertebra V.” in ¶60, as per “the surgical tool 30 comprises a driver 44 (e.g., a screw driver) arranged along the rotational axis R to rotate about the rotational axis R for driving in a pedicle screw PS or other implant.” in ¶52, as per “The robotic controller 32 is configured to control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS so that the rotational speed and the rate of advancement along the trajectory LH are proportional to the thread pitch P of the pedicle screw PS.” in ¶73)
(2) robotically controls the rotational and advancement rates of a rotational driver based upon the calculated screw pitch to insert the screw into the bone. (as per “The robotic controller 32 is configured to control the insertion of the pedicle screw PS so that the rotational speed and the rate of advancement along the trajectory LH are proportional to the thread pitch P of the pedicle screw PS” in ¶73, as per “The relationship between the pedicle screw thread pitch, the angular, or rotational, position and the depth of insertion, or advancement along the trajectory, is governed by the equation θ=D*(Pitch/π), where θ is the angular position, D is the depth of insertion in unit length, Pitch is the threads per unit length of the pedicle screw PS.” in ¶75, as per “a measurement tool directly or wirelessly connected to the robotic system 10 may be utilized to scan or measure any intended pedicle screw PS to extract the thread geometry and transmit the measured thread geometry to the robotic system 10 memory” in ¶74, as per ¶73)
Kang fails to expressly disclose:
scanning the screw with a scanner and/or sensor to produce an image;
wherein a robotic controller (1) calculates screw pitch based on the image,
Min discloses of a measurement method of screw thread geometric error based on machine vision, comprising:
scanning the screw with a scanner and/or sensor to produce an image; (as per “Figure 1 showed the measurement system designed. The measurement system detecting screw thread geometric error were made of charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor, image acquisition card, light source, universal tool microscope and computer.” in P2, System design, as per “The image collected by CCD was inputted by image capture card and digitally processed by computer. The edge image of screw was obtained through preprocessing and extraction of profile curve, so the geometric error of screw was comprehensively measured” in P2, System design)
wherein a robotic controller (1) calculates screw pitch based on the image, (as per “The geometric error of screw thread, such as pitch, angle and diameter of screw, were calculated by extracting the coordinates of image edge. The system can be concluded that the method of machine vision, whose linear precision is less than 10 μm, can be used to detect the comprehensive parameters of screw thread.” in P1, Abstract, as per “The thread pitch is the axial distance between two adjacent shape-V forms on the middle diameter. As shown in Figure 6, the pixel value of thread pitch EF can be calculated from images when the location of diameter was found.” in P5, Pitch diameter of thread)
In this way, Min operates to image a screw thread with a CCD image sensor and to calculate the thread pitch of the screw from the coordinates of the image edge as a non-contact measurement (P1, Abstract; P5, Pitch diameter of thread). Like Kang, Min is concerned with determining the thread pitch of a screw. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the robotic spine surgery system of Kang with the machine-vision pitch measurement of Min to enable another standard means of obtaining the thread geometry of the pedicle screw by scanning the screw, as Kang itself calls for at ¶74. Such modification also allows the robotic controller to drive the rotational and advancement rates from a pitch measured directly from the screw rather than a stored or manually entered value, thereby improving the accuracy of the insertion (P1, Abstract; P1, Introduction).
As per Claim 109, the combination of Kang and Min teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 102. Kang further discloses wherein the screw comprises a pedicle screw. (as per “During the surgical procedure, such as a spinal fusion surgery, a surgeon may insert one or more pedicle screws PS through pedicle regions into a vertebral body 100 of vertebra V” in ¶60, as per “In FIG. 5, the surgical tool 30 comprises a driver 44 (e.g., a screw driver) arranged along the rotational axis R to rotate about the rotational axis R for driving in a pedicle screw PS or other implant.” in ¶52)
Claim(s) 103, 106, and 108 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. No. 20210275260) in view of Min (NPL Title: Measurement method of screw thread geometric error based on machine vision, Year 2018) in further view of Nakaniwa (US Pub. No. 20090135401).
As per Claim 103, the combination of Kang and Min teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 102. Kang further discloses wherein the robotic controller further controls movement of a first surgical robotic arm in a robotic coordinate space to position the screw. (as per “The robotic arm 20 includes a base link 24 rotatably coupled to the base 22 and a plurality of arm links 26 serially extending from the base link 24 to a distal end 28. The arm links 26 pivot/rotate about a plurality of joints in the robotic arm 20. A surgical tool for use in performing the spine procedure, for example, is shown generally at 30. The surgical tool 30 may be pivotally connected to the distal end 28 of the robotic arm 20.” in ¶33, as per “The robotic system 10 evaluates the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS and creates virtual boundaries (e.g., haptic objects), pre-defined tool paths, and/or other autonomous movement instructions, that correspond to the desired pose of the pedicle screws PS to control movement of the robotic arm 20 so that the drill 42 and driver 44 of the surgical tool 30 are controlled in a manner that ultimately places the pedicle screws PS according to the user's plan.” in ¶58)
Kang and Min fail to expressly disclose adjacent to a reference device in a field of view of a camera.
Nakaniwa discloses of an optical device, and method of measuring the dimension of object using optical device, comprising adjacent to a reference device in a field of view of a camera. (as per “an optical apparatus (10) according to the present invention has a telescope (16) which includes a reticule plate (46) into which an image (C′) of an object (C) will be projected and the plate (46) has a plurality of reference scales (52) for comparison in dimension with the projected image (C′).” in ¶6, as per “FIG. 4 shows cross hairs 50 for alignment and a plurality of marks or reference scales 52 indicated on the reticule plate 46, together with an object image or a crack image C′ collimated on the reticule plate 46 and observed through the eye lens 48. The intersection of the cross hairs 50 coincides with the optical axis 38” in ¶67, as per “At step S106, the telescope 16 is rotated horizontally and/or vertically to place the reference scales 52 adjacent or on the projected crack image C′.” in ¶105)
In this way, Nakaniwa operates to project the image of an object onto a reticle plate carrying a plurality of graduated reference scales and to measure a dimension of the object by optically comparing the projected image against the reference scales in the field of view (¶6, ¶67, ¶68). Like Kang and Min, Nakaniwa is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object from its image. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang and Min with the graduated reference scale of Nakaniwa to enable another standard means of obtaining the dimension by providing a known reference in the field of view against which the screw is optically viewed. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be read against the reference scale indicia rather than from pixel calibration alone, thereby improving the reliability of the measurement (¶6, ¶68).
As per Claim 106, the combination of Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 103. Kang fails to expressly disclose wherein the reference device comprises a linear scale having indicia corresponding to the screw pitch.
See Claim 103 for teachings of Min. Min further discloses corresponding to the screw pitch. (as per “The geometric error of screw thread, such as pitch, angle and diameter of screw, were calculated by extracting the coordinates of image edge. The system can be concluded that the method of machine vision, whose linear precision is less than 10 μm, can be used to detect the comprehensive parameters of screw thread.” in P1, Abstract, as per “The thread pitch is the axial distance between two adjacent shape-V forms on the middle diameter. As shown in Figure 6, the pixel value of thread pitch EF can be calculated from images when the location of diameter was found.” in P5, Pitch diameter of thread)
In this way, Min operates to calculate the thread pitch of a screw from the coordinates of the image edge, the pitch being the axial distance between two adjacent thread forms read from the image (P1, Abstract; P5, Pitch diameter of thread). Like Kang and Nakaniwa, Min is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang and Nakaniwa with the machine-vision pitch measurement of Min to enable another standard means of obtaining the screw pitch from the image, as Kang calls for at ¶74. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be read and calculated optically from the imaged thread, thereby improving the accuracy of the pitch relied upon by the controller (P1, Abstract; P1, Introduction).
Kang and Min fail to expressly disclose wherein the reference device comprises a linear scale having indicia.
See Claim 103 for teachings of Nakaniwa. Nakaniwa further discloses wherein the reference device comprises a linear scale having indicia. (as per “The reference scales 52, each formed of a rectangular or strip-like mark having a smaller vertical dimension and a larger transverse dimension, are spaced apart from each other and arranged in line in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis. As shown in the drawing, the strip-like reference scales have the same transverse dimension. The strip-like reference scales have different vertical dimensions. Specifically, each of the reference scales has larger vertical dimension than that positioned there underneath so that the lowermost reference scale has the smallest vertical dimension and the uppermost reference scale has the largest vertical dimension.” in ¶67, as per “Indicated beside the reference scales 52 are respective dimension indexes or numbers associated with the reference scales. For example, the dimension index “1” is provided beside the upper most reference scale 51(1) and the dimension index “16” is provided beside the lowermost reference scale 51(16)” in ¶68)
In this way, Nakaniwa operates to project the image of an object onto a reticle plate carrying a plurality of graduated reference scales and to measure a dimension of the object by optically comparing the projected image against the reference scales in the field of view (¶6, ¶67, ¶68). Like Kang and Min, Nakaniwa is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object from its image. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang and Min with the graduated reference scale of Nakaniwa to enable another standard means of obtaining the dimension by providing a known reference in the field of view against which the screw is optically viewed. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be read against the reference scale indicia rather than from pixel calibration alone, thereby improving the reliability of the measurement (¶6, ¶68).
As per Claim 108, the combination of Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 103. Kang fails to expressly disclose wherein the screw pitch is calculated by optically viewing the scale indicia with the scanner and/or sensor.
See Claim 103 for teachings of Min. Min further discloses wherein the screw pitch is calculated. (as per “using a large tool microscope, the thread profile is projected through the optical system in the field of eye piece, and operation staff read out the thread parameters by measurement lens.” in P1, Introduction, as per “As shown in Figure 6, the pixel value of thread pitch EF can be calculated from images when the location of diameter was found.” in P5, Pitch diameter of thread)
In this way, Min operates to calculate the thread pitch of a screw from the coordinates of the image edge, the pitch being the axial distance between two adjacent thread forms read from the image (P1, Abstract; P5, Pitch diameter of thread). Like Kang and Nakaniwa, Min is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang and Nakaniwa with the machine-vision pitch measurement of Min to enable another standard means of obtaining the screw pitch from the image, as Kang calls for at ¶74. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be read and calculated optically from the imaged thread, thereby improving the accuracy of the pitch relied upon by the controller (P1, Abstract; P1, Introduction).
Kang and Min fail to expressly disclose optically viewing the scale indicia with the scanner and/or sensor.
See Claim 103 for teachings of Nakaniwa. Nakaniwa further discloses optically viewing the scale indicia with the scanner and/or sensor. (as per “the collimated object image such as the crack image is focused through the objective lens 40, the focusing lens 42 and the erect prism 44 on the focus lens 46, which allows the object image to be observed in an enlarged manner through the eye lens 48 by the operator.” in ¶66, as per “FIG. 4 shows cross hairs 50 for alignment and a plurality of marks or reference scales 52 indicated on the reticule plate 46, together with an object image or a crack image C′ collimated on the reticule plate 46 and observed through the eye lens 48” in ¶67, as per “although the reference scales are provided on the reticule plate, they may be indicated on a transparent plate positioned on the front or rear side of the reticule plate with respect to the optical axis direction and within the focal depth of the eye lens, provided that the operator can observe the object image and the reference scales clearly through the eye lens.” in ¶119)
In this way, Nakaniwa operates to project the image of an object onto a reticle plate carrying a plurality of graduated reference scales and to measure a dimension of the object by optically comparing the projected image against the reference scales in the field of view (¶6, ¶67, ¶68). Like Kang and Min, Nakaniwa is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object from its image. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang and Min with the graduated reference scale of Nakaniwa to enable another standard means of obtaining the dimension by providing a known reference in the field of view against which the screw is optically viewed. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be read against the reference scale indicia rather than from pixel calibration alone, thereby improving the reliability of the measurement (¶6, ¶68).
Claim(s) 104 and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. No. 20210275260) in view of Min (NPL Title: Measurement method of screw thread geometric error based on machine vision, Year 2018) in view of Nakaniwa (US Pub. No. 20090135401) in further view of Crawford (US Pub. No. 20160242849).
As per Claim 104, the combination of Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 103. Kang and Min fail to expressly disclose:
wherein the robotic controller further controls a second robotic arm to position the scanner and/or sensor
to image the reference device and the screw with the scanner and/or sensor to generate an image of the reference device together with the surgical screw.
See Claim 103 for teachings of Nakaniwa. Nakaniwa further discloses:
to image the reference device and the screw with the scanner and/or sensor to generate an image of the reference device together with the surgical screw. (as per “In order to achieve the object, an optical apparatus (10) according to the present invention has a telescope (16) which includes a reticule plate (46) into which an image (C′) of an object (C) will be projected and the plate (46) has a plurality of reference scales (52) for comparison in dimension with the projected image (C′).” in ¶6, as per “FIG. 4 shows cross hairs 50 for alignment and a plurality of marks or reference scales 52 indicated on the reticule plate 46, together with an object image or a crack image C′ collimated on the reticule plate 46 and observed through the eye lens 48. The intersection of the cross hairs 50 coincides with the optical axis 38. In the embodiment, a number of reference scales 52, e.g., 16 scales, are provided in the circumferential regions of the reticule plate 46.” in ¶67, as per “The operator visually compares the width W′ of the crack image C′ projected on the reticule plate with the reference scales and then inputs the dimension index of the reference scale having the same dimension (longitudinal dimension) as or closest to that of the width W′ through the input unit 22.” in ¶79)
In this way, Nakaniwa operates to project the image of an object onto a reticle plate carrying a plurality of graduated reference scales and to measure a dimension of the object by optically comparing the projected image against the reference scales in the field of view (¶6, ¶67, ¶68). Like Kang and Min, Nakaniwa is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object from its image. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang and Min with the graduated reference scale of Nakaniwa to enable another standard means of obtaining the dimension by providing a known reference in the field of view against which the screw is optically viewed. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be read against the reference scale indicia rather than from pixel calibration alone, thereby improving the reliability of the measurement (¶6, ¶68).
Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa fail to expressly disclose:
wherein the robotic controller further controls a second robotic arm to position the scanner and/or sensor
Crawford discloses of a surgical robot platform, comprising:
wherein the robotic controller further controls a second robotic arm to position the scanner and/or sensor (as per Fig. 81, as per “FIG. 81 illustrates a perspective view of a robot system including a camera arm in accordance with one embodiment of the invention” in ¶98, as per “overcome issues with line of sight, it is possible to mount cameras for tracking the patient 18 and robot 15 on an arm 8210 extending from the robot. As shown in FIG. 81, in some embodiments, the arm 8210 is coupled to a camera arm 8200 via a joint 8210 a, and the arm 8210 is coupled to the system 1 via joint 8210 b.” in ¶502, as per “feedback from the current location of active markers 720 within the field of view would be used to adjust the azimuth and elevation until the camera 8200 points directly at the target, regardless of whether the target is the center (mean) of the markers 720 on the robot 15, the center of markers 720 on the targeting fixture 720, or the center of all markers 720” in ¶491)
In this way, Crawford operates to mount a camera on a camera arm extending from the surgical robot and to adjust the azimuth and elevation of the arm so that the camera is directed at the target (¶98, ¶491, ¶502). Like Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa, Crawford is concerned with imaging an object within a field of view. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa with the camera arm of Crawford to enable another standard means of positioning the scanner and/or sensor by providing a second robotic arm that carries and aims the camera at the reference device and the screw. Such modification also allows the camera to be robotically directed at the target to overcome line-of-sight obstructions, thereby improving the accuracy and quality of the captured image (¶491, ¶502).
As per Claim 105, the combination of Kang, Min, Nakaniwa, and Crawford teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 104. Kang fails to expressly disclose wherein the robotic controller calculates the screw pitch of the surgical screw by comparing the reference device image data with the screw image data.
See Claim 104 for teachings of Min. Min further discloses wherein the robotic controller calculates the screw pitch of the surgical screw. (as per “The geometric error of screw thread, such as pitch, angle and diameter of screw, were calculated by extracting the coordinates of image edge. The system can be concluded that the method of machine vision, whose linear precision is less than 10 μm, can be used to detect the comprehensive parameters of screw thread.” in P1, Abstract, as per “The thread pitch is the axial distance between two adjacent shape-V forms on the middle diameter. As shown in Figure 6, the pixel value of thread pitch EF can be calculated from images when the location of diameter was found.” in P5, Pitch diameter of thread)
In this way, Min operates to calculate the thread pitch of a surgical screw from the coordinates of the image edge using a non-contact machine-vision measurement (P1, Abstract; P5, Pitch diameter of thread). Like Kang, Nakaniwa, and Crawford, Min is concerned with imaging an object within a field of view. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang, Nakaniwa, and Crawford with the machine-vision pitch measurement of Min to enable another standard means of obtaining the screw pitch from the screw image, as Kang calls for at ¶74. Such modification also allows the robotic controller to calculate the pitch of the surgical screw from image data rather than relying on a stored value, thereby improving the accuracy of the insertion control (P1, Abstract; P1, Introduction).
Kang and Min fail to expressly disclose by comparing the reference device image data with the screw image data.
See Claim 104 for teachings of Nakaniwa. Nakaniwa further discloses by comparing the reference device image data with the screw image data. (as per “which an image (C′) of an object (C) will be projected and the plate (46) has a plurality of reference scales (52) for comparison in dimension with the projected image (C′).” in ¶6, as per “This allows that, using the dimension index of the reference scale obtained through the operator's visual comparison between the collimated object image and the reference scale having a dimension which is the same as or closest to that of the object image collimated on the reticule plate and then inputted through the input unit 22 into the measuring device 10, the measuring device 10 calculates the dimension of the object projected onto the reticule plate 46.” in ¶68, as per “The operator visually compares the width W′ of the crack image C′ projected on the reticule plate with the reference scales and then inputs the dimension index of the reference scale having the same dimension (longitudinal dimension) as or closest to that of the width W′ through the input unit 22.” in ¶79)
In this way, Nakaniwa operates to project the object image onto a reticle plate together with its graduated reference scales and to calculate the dimension of the object by comparing the projected image against the reference scale (¶6, ¶68, ¶79). Like Kang, Min, and Crawford, Nakaniwa is concerned with acquiring an image of an object within a field of view. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang, Min, and Crawford with the reference-scale comparison of Nakaniwa to enable another standard means of determining the pitch by imaging the screw together with a known reference and comparing the screw image data against the reference image data. Such modification also allows the measurement to be referenced to a known scale captured in the same field of view, thereby improving measurement accuracy (¶6, ¶68).
Claim(s) 107 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US Pub. No. 20210275260) in view of Min (NPL Title: Measurement method of screw thread geometric error based on machine vision, Year 2018) in view of Nakaniwa (US Pub. No. 20090135401) in further view of Hardy (US Pub. No. 20080049268).
As per Claim 107, the combination of Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 106. Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa fail to expressly disclose wherein the indicia are spaced finer than an expected screw pitch.
Hardy discloses of a two-dimensional measurement system, wherein the indicia are spaced finer than an expected screw pitch. (as per "A two-dimensional ruler generally consists of a regular rectangular grid of points or lines at known spacing produced on a transparent substrate using a highly accurate process. The grid points or lines are generally marked with two-dimensional scale labels with varying graduation sizes." in ¶7, as per "For instance, a current commercially available two-dimensional ruler has a grid of lines spaced at a finest resolution of 1 mm. The lines are nominally accurate to 0.002 mm." in ¶7, as per "Such two-dimensional rulers are used by imaging a feature to be measured through the grid of points or lines, reading off the labels associated with the graduations closest to the feature of interest, and interpolating the position of the feature of interest between the closest grid points or lines." in ¶7)
In this way, Hardy operates to provide a graduated reference scale, in the form of a grid of points or lines marked with graduations and spaced at a fine resolution such as 1 mm, against which a feature imaged through the scale is measured by reading the graduations closest to the feature and interpolating between them (¶7). Like Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa, Hardy is concerned with measuring a dimension of an object from its image against a reference scale. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system(s) of Kang, Min, and Nakaniwa with the finely graduated reference scale of Hardy to enable another standard means of resolving the screw pitch by spacing the indicia of the reference device finer than the expected screw pitch, the thread pitch of the pedicle screw (¶73, ¶75) being an axial spacing coarser than the 1 mm graduation spacing taught by Hardy. Such modification also allows the screw pitch to be resolved by reading the imaged thread crests against graduations finer than the pitch and interpolating between them, thereby improving the precision of the pitch measurement relied upon by the controller for the rotational and advancement control (¶7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang (WO Pub. No. 2020097481) discloses a robotic spine surgery system and methods.
Kurtz (US Pat. No. 10657419) discloses machine vision and robotic installation systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights