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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Display means in claim 1 (and dependent claims).
Control unit means in claim 1 (and dependent claims).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 (and dependent claims) are objected to because of the following informalities: “the observation point, the observation direction” should be “an observation point, an observation direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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(s) 1-2, 6-8, 12-14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190056693 in view of Navab U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20100149213.
Regarding claim 1 (independent):
A system for visualizing OCT signals, comprising: a display means designed for the time-resolved display of image data (Gelman [0532] In some embodiments the 3D image acquisition system 1316 is a real time image acquisition system, and 3D images displayed based on data captured by the 3D image acquisition system 1316 are optionally displayed in real-time, that is, within a fraction of a second of capturing the 3D images.)(Gelman [0093] acquisition system selected from a list consisting of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computerized Tomography, PET-CT (Positron Emission Tomography-Computed tomography), nuclear imaging, X-ray, Infra-Red-camera, Ultrasound, functional imaging, metabolic imaging, OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography), IVUS (IntraVascular Ultrasound) imaging, Electrophysiology—electroanatomical mapping, and cone beam CT 3D rotational angiography.)
and a control unit, which is configured to receive a time-resolved OCT signal of a selected field of view of a sample from an OCT system (Gelman [0211] FIG. 2B shows functional blocks in an example embodiment of the invention and how they optionally interact in order to display a holographic image of a body organ, optionally at a correct location of the body organ within a body.)(Gelman [0218] FIG. 2C depicts a holographic image 210 of the first object, for example a torso 203 including internal organs 210, for example liver and related blood vessels of a patient, floating in the air. FIG. 2C also depicts a viewer 201 wearing a HMD 202, which displays a field of view 219, which displays the holographic image 210. The holographic image is optionally floating in the air, somewhere in a vicinity of a patient's body (not shown in FIG. 2C, but shown in FIGS. 2D and 2E).)
to ascertain, on the basis of the OCT signal, a time-resolved OCT image having at least one object and having a virtual surface, and to display the time-resolved OCT image on the display means (Gelman [0217] Reference is now made to FIGS. 2C, 2D and 2E, which are simplified illustrations of a HMD displaying a holographic image of a first object maneuvered to appear within a visually obstructing second object, according to an example embodiment of the invention.) (Gelman [0532] In some embodiments the 3D image acquisition system 1316 is a real time image acquisition system, and 3D images displayed based on data captured by the 3D image acquisition system 1316 are optionally displayed in real-time, that is, within a fraction of a second of capturing the 3D images.).
Gelman does not teach reflection. In a related field of endeavor, Navab teaches:
A system for visualizing (Navab Abstract A virtual penetrating mirror (1) for visualizing at least one virtual object (5) within an augmented reality environment).
a display means designed for the (Navab [0030] An augmented reality scene presented on a display of a displaying device, which consists of at least one virtual mirror and further virtual objects reflected in the virtual mirror can be presented in real-time.).
and a control unit, which is configured to receive a (Navab [0029] As a further advantage the virtual mirror is capable of visualizing digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) from 3D Computer Tomography (CT) volumes with arbitrary positioned x-ray sources defined by the varying viewpoint of the observer.).
to ascertain, on the basis of the and to display (Navab [0030] An augmented reality scene presented on a display of a displaying device, which consists of at least one virtual mirror and further virtual objects reflected in the virtual mirror can be presented in real-time. Motion of the virtual mirror, the reflected virtual objects and the view point does not limit real-time capabilities of the visualization. The virtual objects can be observed from any arbitrary view point, which eases the examination of complex structured virtual entities. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mirror as taught by Navab. The motivation for doing so would have been that mirrors are well-known devices with which we are accustom to using for interaction and navigation and provides additional viewpoints (Navab [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Navab with Gelman to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 2:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Navab further teaches wherein the reflection of the at least one object on the virtual surface is ascertained when a ray emanating from an observation point and reflected by the virtual surface intersects the at least one object (Navab [0029] As a further advantage the virtual mirror is capable of visualizing digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) from 3D Computer Tomography (CT) volumes with arbitrary positioned x-ray sources defined by the varying viewpoint of the observer. Manipulation of the virtual object consisting in this case of preoperative CT data or modification of position and orientation of the virtual mirror, or the point of view of the observer results in a visualization of the sum of attenuation coefficient along the optical rays in the viewing volume of X-ray source within the body of the virtual object reflected on the virtual mirror. [0030] An augmented reality scene presented on a display of a displaying device, which consists of at least one virtual mirror and further virtual objects reflected in the virtual mirror can be presented in real-time. Motion of the virtual mirror, the reflected virtual objects and the view point does not limit real-time capabilities of the visualization. The virtual objects can be observed from any arbitrary view point, which eases the examination of complex structured virtual entities.).
Regarding claim 6:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Gelman further teaches wherein an OCT signal assigned to voxels that are arranged behind and/or in front of the virtual surface in an observation direction is preferably deemphasized in the OCT image (Gelman [0145] In some embodiments, the alignment is performed by a viewer using control commands to a display system displaying the CGH image(s) in order to align the elements with the exiting object. By way of a medical example, a physician commanding the CGH display to shift and/or rotate and/or scale a CGH image of a patient's internal organs to the patient's body. By way of a construction example, a viewer commanding the CGH display to shift and/or rotate and/or scale a CGH image of wiring to the visible wiring outlets on a wall.)(Gelman [0177] In some embodiments the accuracy of alignment is measured as accuracy of within 10 pixels or voxels of the CGH image to an actual body, and an accuracy of less than 10 pixels/voxels, such as 5, 2, 1 pixels/voxels, and even sub-pixel accuracy, such as 0.5, 0.2, 0.1 pixels/voxels or better.) since all objects are scaled down, everything is deemphasized.
Regarding claim 7:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Gelman further teaches wherein the at least one object comprises a medical instrument and/or an anatomical structure (Gelman [0267] FIG. 4A depicts the holographic image 210 of the first object, for example internal organs, for example a liver, within the visually obstructing second object, for example the skin 211 of an actual body of the patient whose liver is displayed, and the additional object, for example a surgical tool 209, for example a syringe which includes a needle 214.).
Regarding claim 8:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Gelman further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to ascertain the at least one object by segmenting the OCT signal or the OCT image (Gelman [0033] According to some embodiments of the invention, the location of the third registration location in the tool is detectable by image analysis, and the detecting the location of the third registration location in the tool includes performing image analysis on an image of the tool to detect the third registration location in the tool.)(Gelman [0072] According to some embodiments of the invention, the location of the first registration location in the inner body organ is detectable by image analysis, and the detecting the location of the first registration location in the inner body organ includes performing image analysis on the first three-dimensional dataset to detect the first registration location in the inner body organ.)(Gelman [0317] In some embodiments the automatic alignment may optionally be of features in the CGH image of the first object and features in the second object, the features being detectable by image analysis.).
Regarding claim 12:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Navab further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to vary a position and/or orientation of the observation point, the observation direction and/or the virtual surface (Gelman [0238] An aspect of some embodiments of the invention involves displaying, by way of a non-limiting example, a CGH image of a body's internal organs, correctly placed within a view of the real body, via two or more displays, each one of the displays displaying the same CGH image, as viewed from a viewpoint of an associated CGH image display, of the body's internal organs, correctly placed within the view of the same real body, to the above-mentioned appropriate degree of accuracy.)
Gelman does not teach a virtual surface mirror. In a related field of endeavor, Navab teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to vary a position and/or orientation of the observation point, the observation direction and/or the virtual surface (Navab [0032] The virtual mirror can be positioned and orientated in any scale without any restriction within the augmented reality scene. Furthermore the virtual mirror can be moved to positions inside real objects in an augmented reality scene.)(Navab [0030] An augmented reality scene presented on a display of a displaying device, which consists of at least one virtual mirror and further virtual objects reflected in the virtual mirror can be presented in real-time. Motion of the virtual mirror, the reflected virtual objects and the view point does not limit real-time capabilities of the visualization. The virtual objects can be observed from any arbitrary view point, which eases the examination of complex structured virtual entities.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mirror as taught by Navab. The motivation for doing so would have been that mirrors are well-known devices with which we are accustom to using for interaction and navigation and provides additional viewpoints (Navab [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Navab with Gelman to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 13:
The system as claimed in claim 12, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Navab further teaches wherein the system further comprises an interface designed to capture a user input, and the control unit is configured to set the position and/or orientation of the observation point, the observation direction and/or the virtual surface on the basis of the user input, and/or wherein the system further comprises a device interface designed to capture a device parameter, and the control unit is configured to set the position and/or orientation of the observation point, the observation direction and/or the virtual surface on the basis of the device parameter (Navab [0032] The virtual mirror can be positioned and orientated in any scale without any restriction within the augmented reality scene. Furthermore the virtual mirror can be moved to positions inside real objects in an augmented reality scene.)(Navab [0030] An augmented reality scene presented on a display of a displaying device, which consists of at least one virtual mirror and further virtual objects reflected in the virtual mirror can be presented in real-time. Motion of the virtual mirror, the reflected virtual objects and the view point does not limit real-time capabilities of the visualization. The virtual objects can be observed from any arbitrary view point, which eases the examination of complex structured virtual entities.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mirror as taught by Navab. The motivation for doing so would have been that mirrors are well-known devices with which we are accustom to using for interaction and navigation and provides additional viewpoints (Navab [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Navab with Gelman to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 14:
The system as claimed in claim 12, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Navab further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to ascertain a target structure on the basis of anatomical information, and to set the position and/or orientation of the observation point, the observation direction and/or the virtual surface on the basis of the ascertained target structure (Navab 28. virtual mirror (1) is virtually attached to the body).
Regarding claim 17:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Gelman further teaches further comprising:
an OCT system, a surgical-microscopic system designed to capture a time-resolved image signal from the selected field of view of the sample, wherein the control unit is further configured to ascertain corresponding video image data on the basis of the captured time-resolved image signal and to simultaneously or sequentially display the video image data with the time-resolved OCT image and/or with the virtual surface on the display means (Gelman [0412] In some embodiments a holographic image produced based on a pre-acquired CT, of the brain for example, is optionally aligned with an intra-operative microscope image, optionally providing an intra-operative magnified view of at least part of a total holographic image.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190056693 in view of Navab U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20100149213 and Zhou U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190205606.
Regarding claim 10:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Gelman further teaches further comprising an interface designed to capture a user input, (Gelman [0401] In some example embodiments all of the holographic images share data such that if one viewer touches a holographic image in a particular spot, the location touched is optionally seen, optionally highlighted or otherwise marked, in some other, or even all of the other holographic images. Similarly, if one viewer manipulates, e.g. rotates or slices a holographic image, the manipulation is optionally performed on some other or even all of the holographic images.).
Gelman in view of Navab does not teach user selection of a segmented object. In a related field of endeavor, Zhou teaches:
further comprising an interface designed to capture a user input, wherein the control unit is configured to segment a multiplicity of objects in the (Zhou [0046] For example, if the user is currently visualizing a portion of a medical image including the heart on the screen, a heart-specific segmentation algorithm can be automatically initiated by the master segmentation artificial agent 102. If the user then clicks in the aorta, a vascular segmentation may then be automatically initiated by the master segmentation artificial agent 102. In this way, the user is not required to pick and choose different segmentation algorithms for achieving different segmentation tasks. When multiple segmentation algorithms in the segmentation algorithm database 108 can be used to segment a particular anatomical structure, the master segmentation artificial agent 102 can utilize a machine learning based mapping (e.g., DNN), trained as described above, to select the best segmentation algorithm for the segmentation task based on the medical imaging modality and/or other image characteristics of the medical image to be segmented. [0047] Although the master segmentation artificial agent 102 acts autonomously to select one or more segmentation algorithms, in a possible implementation, a user (or a clinical site) may be provided with a manual override option (for example on a user interface displayed on a display device) that allows the user to override the master segmentation artificial agent 102 and manually chose a specific segmentation algorithm. Rules controlling the use of the manually override can be defined and/or adjusted by a user.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide user interaction as taught by Zhou. The rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results since Gelman provides for a user to interact with medical images, and Zhou is providing additional interaction to medical images, where there are predictable results since both are providing interactive medical image information to a user. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Zhou with Gelman in view of Navab to obtain the invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190056693 in view of Navab U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20100149213 and Elazar U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9585549 .
Regarding claim 15:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Navab further teaches wherein the virtual surface comprises a concave or convex surface (Navab [0032] Variable design parameters include size, color, shape, background of the image of the reflected virtual object and color of the image of the reflected object presented on the virtual mirror.) where concave/convex is a shape adjustment.
Gelman in view of Navab does not explicitly teach concave/convex although they teach shape. In a related field of endeavor, Elazar teaches:
surface comprises a concave or convex surface (Elazar C14 L55-67 As discussed above for FIG. 1, viewfinder mirror 103 is a mirror, thus having a reflective area. The reflection from viewfinder mirror 103 provides visual guidance to a user about the objects that may be included in images captured by image sensor 204. As mentioned above, viewfinder mirror 103 may be round. In some embodiments, viewfinder mirror 103 is planar. In some embodiments, viewfinder mirror 103 is curved, concave, or convex. In some embodiments, viewfinder mirror 103 has a spherical shape. In some embodiments, viewfinder mirror 103 has a rectangular shape. It can be appreciated by those skilled in the art that smart mirror device 100 can be embodied with different shapes of viewfinder mirror 103 and/or a plurality of viewfinder mirror 103 without departing from the spirit of this invention.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use concave/convex as taught by Elazar. The motivation for doing so would have been that mirrors are well-known devices with which we are accustom to using for interaction and navigation and provides additional viewpoints (Navab [0051]) and Elazar is merely providing common alternative mirror shapes. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Elazar with Gelman in view of Navab to obtain the invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190056693 in view of Navab U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20100149213 and Cunningham U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20130038707.
Regarding claim 16:
The system as claimed in claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Gelman in view of Navab. Navab further teaches wherein the at least one object and/or the reflection of the at least one object in the time-resolved OCT image is ascertained in (Navab [0046] The display of the displaying device 2 can also be a monitor, which is positioned independently from the observer somewhere in his or her field of vision. Therefore video images of the real scene can be captured by any camera device tracked by the tracking system 4.).
Gelman in view of Navab does not teach schematic fashion. In a related field of endeavor, Cunningham teaches:
is ascertained in (Cunningham [0048] FIG. 7(A)-(C) illustrate examples of an augmented video display according to another embodiment of the present disclosure. FIG. 7A shows an example of an augmented video display 710 where the appropriate labels for organs and tissue are overlaid onto a real time video image. In this example, the uterus, colon, bowel, ovary, and fallopian tubes are labeled on the display screen 710. A second example, FIG. 7B, shows an augmented video display 720 with the margins for an ovary cyst overlaid on the real time video signal. Additionally, the augmented video display 720 displays the appropriate labels for organs and tissue. For example, the ovary cyst margin may guide a surgeon to where to cut.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include schematic information as taught by Cunningham. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user additional information and guides. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Cunningham with Gelman in view of Navab to obtain the invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelman U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190056693 in view of Navab U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20100149213 and Blatter U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9046339.
Regarding claim 18 (independent):
A method for visualizing OCT signals, including the method steps of: (Gelman [0532] In some embodiments the 3D image acquisition system 1316 is a real time image acquisition system, and 3D images displayed based on data captured by the 3D image acquisition system 1316 are optionally displayed in real-time, that is, within a fraction of a second of capturing the 3D images.)(Gelman [0093] acquisition system selected from a list consisting of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Computerized Tomography, PET-CT (Positron Emission Tomography-Computed tomography), nuclear imaging, X-ray, Infra-Red-camera, Ultrasound, functional imaging, metabolic imaging, OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography), IVUS (IntraVascular Ultrasound) imaging, Electrophysiology—electroanatomical mapping, and cone beam CT 3D rotational angiography.)
receiving a time-resolved OCT signal of a selected field of view of a sample from an OCT system, (Gelman [0211] FIG. 2B shows functional blocks in an example embodiment of the invention and how they optionally interact in order to display a holographic image of a body organ, optionally at a correct location of the body organ within a body.)(Gelman [0218] FIG. 2C depicts a holographic image 210 of the first object, for example a torso 203 including internal organs 210, for example liver and related blood vessels of a patient, floating in the air. FIG. 2C also depicts a viewer 201 wearing a HMD 202, which displays a field of view 219, which displays the holographic image 210. The holographic image is optionally floating in the air, somewhere in a vicinity of a patient's body (not shown in FIG. 2C, but shown in FIGS. 2D and 2E).)
ascertaining a time-resolved OCT image having at least one object and having a virtual surface, and displaying the time-resolved OCT image on the display means (Gelman [0217] Reference is now made to FIGS. 2C, 2D and 2E, which are simplified illustrations of a HMD displaying a holographic image of a first object maneuvered to appear within a visually obstructing second object, according to an example embodiment of the invention.) (Gelman [0532] In some embodiments the 3D image acquisition system 1316 is a real time image acquisition system, and 3D images displayed based on data captured by the 3D image acquisition system 1316 are optionally displayed in real-time, that is, within a fraction of a second of capturing the 3D images.).
Gelman does not teach reflection. In a related field of endeavor, Navab teaches:
A method for visualizing (Navab Abstract A virtual penetrating mirror (1) for visualizing at least one virtual object (5) within an augmented reality environment).
receiving a (Navab [0029] As a further advantage the virtual mirror is capable of visualizing digitally reconstructed radiographs (DRR) from 3D Computer Tomography (CT) volumes with arbitrary positioned x-ray sources defined by the varying viewpoint of the observer.).
ascertaining a and displaying the (Navab [0030] An augmented reality scene presented on a display of a displaying device, which consists of at least one virtual mirror and further virtual objects reflected in the virtual mirror can be presented in real-time. Motion of the virtual mirror, the reflected virtual objects and the view point does not limit real-time capabilities of the visualization. The virtual objects can be observed from any arbitrary view point, which eases the examination of complex structured virtual entities. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a mirror as taught by Navab. The motivation for doing so would have been that mirrors are well-known devices with which we are accustom to using for interaction and navigation and provides additional viewpoints (Navab [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Navab with Gelman to obtain the invention.
Gelman in view of Navab does not teach a volume with scattering. In a related field of endeavor, Blatter teaches:
with the OCT signal including a multiplicity of tuples each representing a volume element of the sample and a scattering intensity corresponding to the volume element (Blatter C5 L40-45 The absolute value of this complex OCT signal, |A.sub.j|, reveals the profile of scattering intensities at different path lengths, and therefore scattering as a function of depth (z-direction) in the sample. Similarly, the phase, .phi..sub.j can also be extracted from the complex valued OCT signal.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use volume with scattering information as taught by Blatter. The rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results where Gelman can use an OCT signal, and Blatter is providing more detailed information on a standard OCT signal, where the end result generating volume information for modeling. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Blatter with Gelman in view of Navab to obtain the invention.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights