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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendments
In response to applicant’s preliminary amendment received on 1/23/2025, all requested changes to the specification are accepted and have been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-7 and 14-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the artifact shadows" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon claim 1 rejected above. It’s noted that claims 3-6 also reference the indefinite language of “the artifact shadows”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the shadow dimensions" in lines 8 and 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-20 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon claim 14 rejected above. It’s noted that claims 15, 16 and 18, also reference the indefinite language of “the shadow dimensions” or “shadow dimension”.
Claim 15 is generally vague and indefinite. It’s unclear how the “relative scale” can include “areas of the shadow dimensions to areas of the known diameters”. Should the claim have maybe stated something along the lines of “wherein correlating relative scale includes correlating areas of the shadow dimensions to areas of the known dimensions”, or “wherein the relative scale includes areas of the shadow dimensions and areas of the known dimensions”, or similar? Combined with the fact that “shadow dimensions” references and builds on the “shadow dimensions” of claim 14 already indicated as indefinite, makes this claim generally vague and indefinite. As such no prior art rejection can be affectively applied below.
Claim 16 is generally vague and indefinite. It’s unclear how the “relative scale” can include “diameters of the shadow dimensions to diameters of the known diameters”. Should the claim have maybe stated something along the lines of “wherein correlating relative scale includes correlating diameters of the shadow dimensions to diameters of the known dimensions”, or “wherein the relative scale includes diameters of the shadow dimensions and diameters of the known dimensions”, or similar? Combined with the fact that “shadow dimensions” references and builds on the “shadow dimensions” of claim 14 already indicated as indefinite, makes this claim generally vague and indefinite. As such no prior art rejection can be affectively applied below.
Claim 18 is generally vague and indefinite. The limitation “identifying the fiducial with the different shape in the two-dimensional radiographic space based a corresponding shadow dimension” is unclear. Is the fiducial identified “based on” a corresponding shadow dimension or is a shadow dimension of the fiducial identified? Additionally, the limitation “the identified artifact shadows” in lines 4-5 lack antecedent basis. Combined with the fact that “shadow dimension”, lines 3 and 4 in the claim, appears to reference the “shadow dimensions” of claim 14 already indicated as indefinite, makes this claim generally vague and indefinite. As such no prior art rejection can be affectively applied below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0313418 to Nikonovas (already of record, IDS filed 9/26/24).
Regarding claim 1, Nikonovas discloses a method of determining the actual position and pose of a known collection of artifacts from an orthopedic fixation device in a projected three-dimensional space separated from a two-dimensional radiographic space, comprising:
obtaining a digital radiographic image of the known collection of artifacts in the projected three-dimensional space (Fig. 3, elements 304, 306; paragraphs 21-28, wherein an x-ray image (i.e. digital radiographic image) is obtained of bone segments and fixator elements (i.e. known collection of artifacts) in a projected 3D space);
identifying a plurality of shadow dimensions of the artifact shadows in the two-dimensional radiographic space in the digital radiographic image (Fig. 3, element 306a, paragraphs 29-30, wherein fixator elements (i.e. artifact shadows) coordinates/dimensions are identified in the x-ray image corresponding to “shadow dimensions of the artifact shadows”);
correlating relative sizes of the shadow dimensions to known dimensions of the known collection of artifacts (Fig. 3, element 306b; paragraphs 31-38, wherein the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates of those elements in actual 3D space);
determining the actual position and pose of the known collection of artifacts in the projected three-dimensional space based on the correlation of the relative sizes of the shadow dimensions to the known dimensions (Fig. 3, elements 306c and 308; paragraphs 39-46, wherein the actual position and pose of bone segments and fixator elements in the 3D space (i.e. artifacts) are ultimately determined based on the correlation between the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow artifact dimensions) and those of the elements in actual 3D space).
Regarding claim 2, Nikonovas discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a spatial relationship between the digital radiographic image and the orthopedic fixation device based on the actual position and pose (Fig. 3, elements 308, 308a, 308b; paragraphs 45-51, wherein the spatial relationship is determined and represented in a 3D reconstruction based on the actual position and pose of bone segments and fixator elements in the 3D space (i.e. artifacts)).
Regarding claim 3, Nikonovas discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relative sizes include areas of the artifact shadows (Fig. 3, element 306b; paragraphs 31-38, wherein the size/value of coordinates/areas of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates/areas of those elements in actual 3D space).
Regarding claim 4, Nikonovas discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
utilizing the relative sizes of the artifact shadows to determine a foreground to background order or a background to foreground order of the artifact shadows (Fig. 3, elements 308, 308a, 308b; paragraphs 45-51, wherein the correlation of the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements (i.e. artifact shadows) in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates of those elements in actual 3D space to provide the X,Y,Z dimensions of the fixator elements representing a background/foreground order with regards to their depth or Z-coordinate).
Regarding claim 5, Nikonovas discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: utilizing the relative sizes of the artifact shadows to determine a left-to-right order or a right-to-left order of the artifact shadows (Fig. 3, elements 308, 308a, 308b; paragraphs 45-51, wherein the correlation of the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements (i.e. artifact shadows) in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates of those elements in actual 3D space to provide the X,Y,Z dimensions of the fixator elements representing a left/right order with regards to their X coordinates).
Regarding claim 6, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an absolute magnification of the artifact shadows to determine an outlier and annotating the artifact shadows and locations of the artifacts on the orthopedic fixation device to correlate the artifact shadows with respective locations of the artifacts on the orthopedic fixation device (paragraphs 40-46, wherein image coordinate scale factors associated with fixator elements corresponds to an absolute magnification, that is ultimately used to correct images (i.e. outliers) and combine them into a 3D reconstruction (i.e. annotating fixator elements and locations)).
Regarding claim 7, Nikonovas discloses a computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processor for performing a method according to claim 1 (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 8, Nikonovas discloses a method of determining the actual position and pose of a known collection of artifacts from an orthopedic fixation device in a projected three-dimensional space separated from a two-dimensional radiographic space, comprising:
obtaining a digital radiographic image of the known collection of artifacts in the projected three-dimensional space (Fig. 3, elements 304, 306; paragraphs 21-28, wherein an x-ray image (i.e. digital radiographic image) is obtained of bone segments and fixator elements (i.e. known collection of artifacts) in a projected 3D space);
identifying artifact shadows in the digital radiographic image that correspond to the artifacts of the orthopedic fixation device (Fig. 3, element 306a, paragraphs 29-30, wherein fixator elements (i.e. artifact shadows) coordinates/dimensions are identified in the x-ray image);
correlating the identified artifact shadows with their respective locations on the orthopedic fixation device (Fig. 3, element 306b; paragraphs 31-38, wherein the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates of those elements in actual 3D space);
determining a spatial relationship between the digital radiographic image and the orthopedic fixation device (Fig. 3, elements 306c; paragraphs 26 and 39-44, wherein imaging scene parameters (i.e. spatial relationship) between fixator elements in the image and 3D space (i.e. artifacts) are determined based on the correlation between the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow artifact dimensions) and those of the elements in actual 3D space); and
determining the actual position and pose of the known collection of artifacts in the projected three-dimensional space based, at least in part, on the spatial relationship (Fig. 3, elements 308, 308a, 308b; paragraphs 45-51, wherein the actual position and pose of bone segments and fixator elements in the 3D space (i.e. artifacts) are determined based on the imaging scene parameters (i.e. spatial relationship)).
Regarding claim 9, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
identifying vectors extending from the artifact shadows through a focal point (paragraphs 41-42, wherein matrix I associated with each fixator element (i.e. artifact shadow) corresponds to a vector extending from the fixator through a focal point of the imaging source).
Regarding claim 10, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: establishing an orthogonal coordinate system utilizing the vectors (paragraphs 39-43, wherein the matrix P, corresponding to an “orthogonal coordinate”, is established utilizing the vectors of matrices I and E associated with each fixator element).
Regarding claim 11, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
identifying a plurality of shadow dimensions of the artifact shadows in the two-dimensional radiographic space in the digital radiographic image (Fig. 3, element 306a, paragraphs 29-30, wherein fixator elements (i.e. artifact shadows) coordinates/dimensions are identified in the x-ray image corresponding to “shadow dimensions of the artifact shadows”); and
correlating the shadow dimensions to known dimensions of the known collection of artifacts (Fig. 3, element 306b; paragraphs 31-38, wherein the size/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates of those elements in actual 3D space).
Regarding claim 12, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the shadow dimensions include AT LEAST ONE OF a diameter OR an area correlated with at least one of a diameter OR an area of the known collection of artifacts (Fig. 3, element 306b; paragraphs 31-38, wherein the size/value of coordinates/areas of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the coordinates/areas of those elements in actual 3D space).
Regarding claim 13, Nikonovas discloses a computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processor for performing a method according to claim 8 (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 14, Nikonovas discloses a method of determining the actual position and pose of a known collection of fiducials from an orthopedic fixation device in a projected three-dimensional space separated from a two-dimensional radiographic space, comprising:
obtaining a digital radiographic image of the known collection of fiducials in the projected three-dimensional space (Fig. 3, elements 304, 306; paragraphs 21-28, wherein an x-ray image (i.e. digital radiographic image) is obtained of bone segments and fixator elements (i.e. known collection of fiducials) in a projected 3D space);
identifying fiducial shadows in the digital radiographic image that correspond to the fiducials of the orthopedic fixation device (Fig. 3, element 306a, paragraphs 29-30, wherein fixator elements (i.e. fiducial shadows) coordinates/dimensions are identified in the x-ray image);
correlating relative scale of the shadow dimensions to known dimensions of the known collection of fiducials (Fig. 3, element 306b; paragraphs 31-38, wherein the scale/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimension) are correlated with the scale/value of coordinates associated with those elements in actual 3D space);
determining the actual position and pose of the known collection of fiducials in the projected three-dimensional space based on the correlation of the relative scale of the shadow dimensions to the known dimensions (Fig. 3, elements 306c and 308; paragraphs 39-46, wherein the actual position and pose of bone segments and fixator elements in the 3D space (i.e. fiducials) are ultimately determined based on the correlation between the scale/value of coordinates of the fixator elements in the image (i.e. shadow dimensions) and those of the elements in actual 3D space).
Regarding claim 17, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 14, wherein one of the fiducials in the collection of fiducials includes a different shape than the other fiducials in the collection of fiducials (Fig. 2, wherein fiducials corresponds to both fixator elements and bone segments, and as seen in figure 2, fixator elements are different shapes from each other, such as markers, as well as being different from the bone segment fiducials).
Regarding claim 19, Nikonovas discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the fiducials of the orthopedic fixation device are defined, at least in part, by a radius (Fig. 2, wherein some fiducials correspond to the fixator elements form a circle and are therefore defined by a “radius”).
Regarding claim 20, Nikonovas discloses a computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium readable by one or more processing circuit and storing instructions for execution by one or more processor for performing a method according to claim 14 (paragraph 56).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights