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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III: Claims 14-20, which is directed to a system, in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
In the present application, claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-13 are currently withdrawn as they are direct to non-elected inventions. Therefore, claims 14-20 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Romo et al. (US2023/0075251) hereinafter Romo.
Regarding Claim 14, Romo discloses a system (abstract, Fig. 1-9 system 100) comprising:
a catheter(Fig.1-9 bronchoscope 110);
a sensor pack (Figs. 1-9 probe 120) at a distal end portion (Fig. 1) of the catheter (Fig.1-9 bronchoscope 110), the sensor pack (Figs. 1-9 probe 120) including:
a structural member (pull wire, [0050] [0067-0068] “Referring back to FIG. 1 , the power to the camera 124 may be provided by a wired cable. In some cases, the cable wire may be in wire bundle providing power to the camera as well as the illumination elements or other circuitry at the distal tip of the hybrid probe. The camera and/or light source may be supplied with power from a power source disposed in the handle portion of the hybrid probe via wires, copper wires, or via any other suitable means running through the length of the hybrid probe. In some cases, real-time images or video of the tissue or organ may be transmitted to external user interface or display wirelessly. The wireless communication may be WiFi, Bluetooth, RF communication or other forms of communication. In some cases, images or videos captured by the camera may be broadcasted to a plurality of devices or systems. In some cases, image and/or video data from the camera may be transmitted down the length of the hybrid probe to the processors situated in the handle portion via wires, copper wires, or via any other suitable means. The image or video data may be transmitted via the wireless communication component in the handle portion to an external device/system. In some cases, the system may be designed such that no wires are visible or exposed to operators.”);
a cable assembly (driving mechanism 920, [0050])
one or more cameras (Figs. 1-9 camera 124) coupled to the structural member (pull wire, [0050] [0067-0068] and electrically coupled to the cable assembly (driving mechanism 920, [0050] [0067-0068]);
an illumination source (Figs. 1-9 illumination source 126); and
one or more lenses ([0038] “A camera may comprise imaging optics (e.g. lens elements), image sensor (e.g. CMOS or CCD), and illumination (e.g. LED or fiber-based light).”) optically coupled to apertures of the one or more cameras (Figs. 1-9 camera 124);
a processor; and memory having stored thereon instructions, which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to (processor and memory [0033]):
illuminate, by the illumination source (Figs. 1-9 illumination source 126), a feature of at least one body lumen;
capture, by the one or more cameras (Figs. 1-9 camera 124), stereoscopic images of the feature of the at least one body lumen ([0063] “In some cases, the EM sensor 123 may be disposed at the distal portion of the hybrid probe and may be placed adjacent to or behind the illumination light sources (e.g., LEDs) in a stereoscopic arrangement. FIG. 10 shows an example of the distal portion of the hybrid probe with integrated imaging device and the illumination device.”);
match points between the stereoscopic images, yielding matched points ([0036], [0074]);
estimate depth information based on the matched points ([0037]);
convert the depth information to a point cloud volume based on intrinsic parameters of the one or more cameras ([0038], [0060-0067]); and
register the point cloud volume to a 3D model of the at least one body lumen ([0003], [0040], [0082] “The distal end of the bronchoscope may include an integrated forward-looking camera and illumination for direct visualization, along with an integrated EM sensor (e.g., at least 3 degrees of freedom) to generate 3D localization information.”, [0086], [0090-0091].
Regarding Claim 15, Romo discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the structural member is a length of flat wire or rigid wire (pull wire, [0050] [0067-0068] “Referring back to FIG. 1 , the power to the camera 124 may be provided by a wired cable. In some cases, the cable wire may be in wire bundle providing power to the camera as well as the illumination elements or other circuitry at the distal tip of the hybrid probe. The camera and/or light source may be supplied with power from a power source disposed in the handle portion of the hybrid probe via wires, copper wires, or via any other suitable means running through the length of the hybrid probe. In some cases, real-time images or video of the tissue or organ may be transmitted to external user interface or display wirelessly. The wireless communication may be WiFi, Bluetooth, RF communication or other forms of communication. In some cases, images or videos captured by the camera may be broadcasted to a plurality of devices or systems. In some cases, image and/or video data from the camera may be transmitted down the length of the hybrid probe to the processors situated in the handle portion via wires, copper wires, or via any other suitable means. The image or video data may be transmitted via the wireless communication component in the handle portion to an external device/system. In some cases, the system may be designed such that no wires are visible or exposed to operators.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Romo discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the sensor pack (Figs. 1-9 probe 120) further comprises an electromagnetic (EM) sensor assembly (Fig. 1 EM sensor 123) coupled to the structural member and electrically coupled to the cable assembly (driving mechanism 920, [0050] [0067-0068]).
Regarding Claim 19, Romo discloses the system of claim 14, wherein capturing the stereoscopic images of the feature of the at least one body lumen includes capturing the stereoscopic images of the feature of the at least one body lumen ([0063] “In some cases, the EM sensor 123 may be disposed at the distal portion of the hybrid probe and may be placed adjacent to or behind the illumination light sources (e.g., LEDs) in a stereoscopic arrangement. FIG. 10 shows an example of the distal portion of the hybrid probe with integrated imaging device and the illumination device.”) through a pair of lenses ([0038] “A camera may comprise imaging optics (e.g. lens elements), image sensor (e.g. CMOS or CCD), and illumination (e.g. LED or fiber-based light).”) adjacent to an aperture of a camera of the one or more cameras (Figs. 1-9 camera 124).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo in view of Jeffrey Perkins (U5496259) hereinafter Perkins.
Regarding Claim 16, Romo discloses the system of claim 14, but is silent as to further teach wherein the sensor pack and the cable assembly are encased within a sheath.
However Perkins, in the same field of endeavor, teach the sensor pack (Figs. 1-4 insertion tube) and the cable assembly (Figs. 1, 3-4, handle portion 16) are encased within a sheath (Figs. 1-4 sheath 30).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Romo with the teachings of Perkins to include wherein the sensor pack and the cable assembly are encased within a sheath for the benefit of providing “a sterile sheath which minimizes risk of contact with surfaces contaminated by a patient’s body fluids during surgery” (Perkins – abstract, [col. 2 lines 5-36]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo in view of Dominic Massetti (US2014/0375784) hereinafter Massetti.
Regarding Claim 18, Romo discloses the system of claim 14, but is silent as explicitly teaching wherein the sensor pack further comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) coupled to the structural member and electrically coupled to the cable assembly.
However Massetti, in the same field of endeavor, teach the sensor pack further comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) coupled to the structural member and electrically coupled to the cable assembly ([0046] “The endoscopic inertial measurement unit was fixed on the tip of a flexible endoscope (FIG. 6).”[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Romo with the teachings of Massetti to have the sensor pack further comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU) coupled to the structural member and electrically coupled to the cable assembly for the benefit of defining “the orientation of the endoscope relating to the direction of gravity…” to have a corrected image orientation (Massetti – [0038]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo in view Ho et al. (US5660181) hereinafter Ho.
Regarding Claim 20, Romo discloses the system of claim 14, but is silent as to explicitly teach wherein estimating the depth information includes estimating the depth information using a neural network.
However Ho, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein estimating the depth information includes estimating the depth information using a neural network (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Romo with the teachings of Ho to include wherein estimating the depth information includes estimating the depth information using a neural network for the benefit of obtaining “…and in-depth three dimensional mapping of an object…located within living tissue” ([col. 1 lines 7-20]) through the use of “quantitative information as position, dimensions, distribution, and morphology of tumors” ([col. 1 lines 45-55]) and (col. 1 line 6 – col. 2 line 35]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
David Cook (US2021/0183079);
Kim et al. (US2013/0023732);
Uemori et al. (US2019/0037202); and
Geric et al. (US2023/0053189).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E MONAHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7330. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MEGAN ELIZABETH MONAHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights