DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 September 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 11 September 2026 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The indicated allowability of claims 24-30 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Doo et al. (WO-2015/164402-A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claims 24, 26, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doo (WO-2015/164402-A1).
Regarding claim 24: Doo discloses a method for registering X-ray generated images in 3D coordinate space while viewing a patient using an augmented reality (AR) headset (fig 1(46), fig 4, [0035], [0037], and [0044]-[0045] of Doo), comprising: receiving a plurality of X-ray generated images of patient anatomy (fig 1(20,22,24), figs 2-3, [0003], and [0039]-[0040] of Doo – multiple x-rays of patient anatomy, like shown in prior art fig 1, are captured and displayed in the surgeons augmented reality device, as show in figs 2-3); aligning the plurality of X-ray generated images using an optically visible marker and associated image visible marker on a patient and the associated image visible marker is represented in the X-ray generated image (fig 2 (27), fig 5(27), fig 6(27), [0037], and [0065] of Doo – registration of multiple X-ray images based on markers or fiducials 27); receiving a first point mark-up for annotating an anatomic structure on a first X-ray generated image and a second point mark-up in a second X-ray generated image, wherein the first point mark-up and second point mark-up represent common anatomical structure in the patient or a medical procedure trajectory (fig 6(1232), fig 7(1232), fig 12(1232), and [0074]-[0075] of Doo – point markups on each image presented to provide the surgeon with the medical procedure trajectory (treatment guide)); aligning the first point mark-up and the second point mark-up to generate an intersection using the first X-ray generated image and second X-ray generated image viewable using the AR headset (fig 6 and [0074] of Doo); and identifying a 3D image data set obtained from a 3D medical imaging device that contains a virtual marker identifying the common anatomical structure in the 3D image data set (figs 8-11, fig 12(1232), and [0076]-[0079] of Doo – virtual markings and treatment guide used to identify the appropriate image data set to create 3D tomographic imaging); and aligning the 3D image data set to the common anatomical structure by aligning the virtual marker in the 3D image data set to the intersection for the plurality of X-ray generated images, using the AR headset (figs 6-7, figs 12-13, and [0079]-[0080] of Doo – common anatomical structures aligned using the virtual markers 27 and the virtual treatment guide 1232 to guide the surgeon in the surgical procedure).
Regarding claim 26: Doo discloses the method as in claim 24 (as rejected above), wherein the optically visible marker is an optical code, a visible marker (fig 2(27) and [0037] of Doo – strategically arranged visible markers/fiducials), a linear bar code, a 2D bar code, a QR code, or an April code (list is recited in the alternative, and at least one is taught by Doo).
Regarding claim 27: Doo discloses the method as in claim 24 (as rejected above), further comprising displaying the plurality of X-ray generated images overlaid on the patient anatomy as defined in part by alignment of the first point mark-up and the second point mark-up, using the AR headset ([0030] and [0035] of Doo).
Regarding claim 29: Doo discloses the method as in claim 25 (as rejected above), further comprising defining positions and orientations of the X-ray generated images with respect to the patient anatomy using geometric attributes of an X-ray projection field (figs 8-11 and [0076]-[0078] of Doo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doo (WO-2015/164402-A1) in view of Steines (US-2022/0287676).
Regarding claim 25: Doo discloses the method as in claim 24 (as rejected above), further comprising aligning the 3D image data set with X-ray generated images as the X-ray generated images move within the 3D coordinate system due to movement of the surgeon over time ([0037] of Doo – maintains x-ray image alignment despite the occasional movements by the surgeon).
Doo does not disclose aligning the 3D image data set due to movement of the patient over time.
Steines discloses aligning the 3D image data set due to movement of the patient over time ([0121]-[0122] of Steines – maintains view (alignment) in HMD during patient movement).
Doo and Steines are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D virtual imaging of patients for surgical operations. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to align the 3D image data set due to movement of the patient over time, as taught by Steines. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the surgeon to have a stable, reliable view of the patient for surgery in conditions in which the patient is not fully anesthetized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Doo according to the relied-upon teachings of Steines to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25.
Regarding claim 30: Doo discloses the method as in claim 24 (as rejected above), further comprising moving the X-ray generated images to maintain alignment with respect to the optically visible marker and associated image visible marker on the patient anatomy when the surgeon moves ([0037] of Doo – maintains x-ray image alignment despite the occasional movements by the surgeon).
Doo does not disclose moving the X-ray generated images to maintain alignment when the patient anatomy moves with respect to an X-ray device or the X-ray device moves with respect to the patient.
Steines discloses moving the X-ray generated images to maintain alignment when the patient anatomy moves with respect to an X-ray device or the X-ray device moves with respect to the patient (figs 6A-7E, [0085]-[0090], and [0121]-[0122] of Steines – X-ray images moved to align based on patient movement).
Doo and Steines are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D virtual imaging of patients for surgical operations. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the X-ray generated images to maintain alignment when the patient anatomy moves with respect to an X-ray device or the X-ray device moves with respect to the patient, as taught by Steines. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the surgeon to have a stable, reliable view of the patient for surgery in conditions in which the patient is not fully anesthetized. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Doo according to the relied-upon teachings of Steines to obtain the invention as specified in claim 30.
10. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doo (WO-2015/164402-A1) in view of Johnson (US-2020/0275988).
Regarding claim 28: Doo discloses the method as in claim 24 (as rejected above), further comprising an additional point on the first X-ray generated image which forms a line with the first point mark-up and the additional point aligns with the line (figs 6-7(1232) and [0074]-[0075] and Doo – first point mark-up 1232 in fig 6 becomes a collection of aligned points 1232 in fig 7).
Doo does not disclose wherein the plurality of X-ray generated images are orthogonal to each other.
Johnson discloses wherein the plurality of X-ray generated images are orthogonal to each other (figs 1A-1B, figs 8A-8B, [0045]-[0046], and [0058]-[0059] of Johnson).
Doo and Johnson are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D virtual imaging of patients for surgical operations. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the plurality of X-ray generated images be orthogonal to each other. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide full 3D imaging using each orthogonal plane, thus providing an improved 3D data set for viewing by the surgeon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Doo according to the relied-upon teachings of Johnson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
