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 Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“and that the data” should be --and the data-- (claim 9, line 3);
“a Euclidean distance)” should be --a Euclidean distance-- (claim 9, line 4);
“the Euclidean distance)” should be --the Euclidean distance-- (claim 10, lines 2 and 4);
“and that the data” should be --and the data-- (claim 10, line 3); and
“and that the data” should be --and the data-- (claim 11, line 2).
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites “a first position” and “a second layer”, however it is unclear if this should really be a first and second layer, or a first and second position. Claim 1 further recites “the first optical recording system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 even further recites “based on a first position of the calibration body relative to the first optical recording system is determinable”. It is unclear what is determinable in this claim language. Claim 8 recites “a first position” and “a second layer”, however it is unclear if this should really be a first and second layer, or a first and second position. Claim 8 further recites “the first, optical recording unit” and “the second transformation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-15 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 15 recites step limitations that are not integrated with the computer- readable storage medium mentioned in the preamble. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent, or open-ended. See MPEP 2111.01. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer-readable storage medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim is rejected as covering a signal per se, which is not directed towards statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" in the claim to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0236208 A1 to Drexl et al. (“Drexl”) in view of United States Patent No. 10,949,986 to Colmenares et al. (“Colmenares”).
As per claim 1, the claimed subject matter that is met by Drexl includes:
a calibration body for a medical assistance system, the calibration body comprising (Drexl: Fig. 1):
an optical marker as a first marker, the optical marker adapted to be captured by a movably arranged optical recording unit of the medical assistance system with a first recording, based on a first position of the calibration body relative to the first optical recording system is determinable (Drexl: ¶¶ 0037-0041); and
an IR marker arrangement as a second marker, the IR marker arrangement comprising at least three IR markers adapted to be detected by an IR tracking unit of the medical assistance system with a second recording, a second layer of the calibration body relative to the IR tracking unit being determinable based on the second recording (Drexl: ¶¶ 0182-0186).
Drexl fails to specifically teach utilizing the optical marker and the IR marker together. The Examiner provides Colmenares to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Colmenares includes:
enable an evaluation of at least one calibration of the medical assistance system by the optical marker and the IR marker arrangement (Colmenares: column 13, lines 1-34 and Fig. 8)
Drexl teaches a calibration system. Colmenares teaches a comparable calibration system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Colmenares offers the embodiment of enable an evaluation of at least one calibration of the medical assistance system by the optical marker and the IR marker arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the optical marker and the IR marker arrangement as disclosed by Colmenares to the calibration system as taught by Drexl for the predicted result of improved calibration systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
As per claim 2, the claimed subject matter that is met by Drexl and Colmenares includes:
wherein the optical marker is formed as an optical pattern at least in sections from a flat bar code, grid code, QR code, laser print or imprint or from a flat anodizing or from an engraving (Drexl: ¶¶ 0037-0041 and Colmenares: column 13, lines 1-34 and Fig. 8).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Drexl and Colmenares are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, the claimed subject matter that is met by Drexl and Colmenares includes:
wherein the IR marker arrangement has four infrared reflector bodies and/or infrared LEDs (Drexl: ¶¶ 0182-0186 and Colmenares: column 13, lines 1-34 and Fig. 8).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Drexl and Colmenares are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, the claimed subject matter that is met by Drexl and Colmenares includes:
wherein four optical patterns are arranged in a first plane and four IR markers are arranged as an IR marker arrangement in a second plane, wherein the first plane is parallel to the second plane and the optical patterns are arranged inside the IR marker in a plan view of the calibration body (Drexl: ¶¶ 0037-0041 and 0182-0186 and Colmenares: column 13, lines 1-34 and Fig. 8).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Drexl and Colmenares are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 5, the claimed subject matter that is met by Drexl and Colmenares includes:
wherein the calibration body has a base body and the optical marker extends to a surface of the base body, and the IR markers are each arranged on an extension or boom or arm projecting from the base body (Colmenares: column 13, lines 1-34 and Fig. 8).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Drexl and Colmenares are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, the claimed subject matter that is met by Drexl and Colmenares includes:
wherein the optical marker is supplemented by optically detectable geometric features of the calibration body (Drexl: ¶¶ 0017, 0037-0041 and 0116).
The motivation for combining the teachings of Drexl and Colmenares are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and are incorporated herein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drexl in view of Colmenares as applied in claim 1, and further in view of International Publication No. WO 2016/058078 to Kheradpir et al. (“Kheradpir”).
As per claim 7, Drexl and Colmenares fail to specifically teach wherein the base body is thickened in an anvil shape on its rear side with respect to the markers in order to form an undercut, and on its side having the markers has crossed grooves or channels as geometric features and the IR markers are arranged protruding from a surface of this side. The Examiner provides Kheradpir to teach and disclose this claimed feature.
The claimed subject matter that is met by Kheradpir includes:
wherein the base body is thickened in an anvil shape on its rear side with respect to the markers in order to form an undercut, and on its side having the markers has crossed grooves or channels as geometric features and the IR markers are arranged protruding from a surface of this side (Kheradpir: Figs. 12-13)
Drexl and Colmenares teaches calibration systems. Kheradpir teaches a comparable calibration system that was improved in the same way as the claimed invention. Kheradpir offers the embodiment of wherein the base body is thickened in an anvil shape on its rear side with respect to the markers in order to form an undercut, and on its side having the markers has crossed grooves or channels as geometric features and the IR markers are arranged protruding from a surface of this side. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the adaptation of the anvil shape as disclosed by Kheradpir to the base body as taught by Drexl and Colmenares for the predicted result of improved calibration systems. No additional findings are seen to be necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0021738 A1 to Hasser et al. (“Hasser”) teaches and discloses a “LUS robotic surgical system is trainable by a surgeon to automatically move a LUS probe in a desired fashion upon command so that the surgeon does not have to do so manually during a minimally invasive surgical procedure. A sequence of 2D ultrasound image slices captured by the LUS probe according to stored instructions are processable into a 3D ultrasound computer model of an anatomic structure, which may be displayed as a 3D or 2D overlay to a camera view or in a PIP as selected by the surgeon or programmed to assist the surgeon in inspecting an anatomic structure for abnormalities. Virtual fixtures are definable so as to assist the surgeon in accurately guiding a tool to a target on the displayed ultrasound image” (Hasser: Abstract).
United States Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0153062 A1 to McGinley et al. (“McGinley”) teaches and discloses “surgical instrument having a grip, a reference structure and an alignment head and method of using. The reference structure has at least one reference element that is registrable in a computer assisted navigation system. The reference element may be a reflective structure for use in an optical tracking system, wire loop for sensing a magnetic field, or other suitable device. The alignment head has a substantially planar alignment surface and may also have a plurality of outwardly extending projections or an electrocautery electrode disposed along an edge of the alignment surface and extending parallel to the alignment surface. The projections may be engaged with an anatomical structure to hold the alignment head in a desired position as the alignment surface is used as a guide to mark the anatomical structure. The disclosed instrument may be used when resecting a femur to prepare the femur to receive the femoral component of a prosthetic hip joint” (McGinley: Abstract).
Non-Patent Literature “Effective calibration of an endoscope to an optical tracking system for medical augmented reality” to Lee et al. teaches and discloses “methods of calibrating an endoscope to an optical tracking system (OTS) for high accuracy augmented reality (AR)-based surgical navigation” (Lee: Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
