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 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:
“an imaging module” in claim 1, and all dependent claims thereof;
“an image planning module” in claim 1, and all dependent claims thereof;
“a motion control module” in claim 1, and all dependent claims thereof;
“a pipeline and hydraulic power module” in claim 1, and all dependent claims thereof;
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in line 23 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the current moment” in line 4 should be amended to read –a current moment--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the previous moment” in line 10 should be amended to read –a previous moment--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in lines 3, 9, and 12 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in line 3 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in line 3 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in line 3 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in lines 3 and 4 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the water jet cutter” in line 6 should be amended to read --the water jet cutter head--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim elements “an image planning module” in claim 1, “a motion control module” in claim 1, and “a pipeline and hydraulic power module” in claim 1 are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the claimed function. Therefore, the applicant has not demonstrated possession of the structures which are intended to be used to accomplish the functions associated with each of the cited claim limitation elements.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claims 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim elements “an image planning module” in claim 1, “a motion control module” in claim 1, and “a pipeline and hydraulic power module” in claim 1 are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the claimed function and therefore the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant intends to use to accomplish the claimed functions.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Furthermore for claim 1, the claim limitation “water jet cutter jet action points” in line 6-7 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the claim limitation of water jet cutter jet action points. The specification does not explicitly explain the claim limitation and merely recites the limitation without further providing any further details.
Furthermore for claim 1, the claim limitation “each axis of the water jet cutter head” in line 13 is in definite because it is unclear if this “each axis” is referring to the each axis that is already recited in 9 or only the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis of water jet cutter head that is recited in lines 9-10.
PNG
media_image1.png
41
134
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore for claim 1, the claim limitation “a water jet cutter head” in line 19 is indefinite because it is unclear if this water jet cutter head is same water jet cutter head that is already recited in line 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
41
134
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, in line 8, the claim recites wherein are updated values and line 10 recites which are error values at previous moments, however, it seems as claim 4 limiting that the variables for updated errors values and error values at previous are identical which is indefinite. In lines 4-7, the errors in the multi-axis linkage control expressed as E and E’.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “the action point jet long-axis position” in line 3 is indefinite because it is unclear what the action point jet long-axis position is referring to and if its related to the water jet cutter jet action points that is recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim limitation “each axis” in line 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if this each axis is related to “each axis” recited in line 9 of claim 1 or “each axis of the water jet cutter head” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim recites the limitation "the motion voxels” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the claim limitation “an error value” in line 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if this error value is the same error value that is already recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation “a trajectory planning position loop” in line 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if this trajectory planning position loop is the same trajectory planning position loop that is already recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the claim limitation “a cross-section image” in lines 2-3 is indefinite because it is unclear if this cross-section image is same cross-section image that is already recited in claim 14 or different.
Furthermore for claim 17, the claim limitation “the high-frequency graphic signal” in line 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if this high-frequency graphic signal is related to high-frequency image signals that is recited in line 4 of claim 17.
Claims 2-3, 6-9, 11 and 15-16 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 1.
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 1-5, 7, 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljuri et al. (US 2026/0013896; hereinafter Aljuri), in view Colbrunn et al. (US 2021/0229279; hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Aljuri discloses tissue resection and treatment. Aljuri shows an automatic water jet cutter system (see 10 in fig. 1; par. [0010] states “provide improvements to assist in more accurate tissue removal in both fully automated and physician assisted operating modes”; par. [0142] states “automated robotic control”), comprising: an imaging module (par. [0201] states “ultrasound probe 460]; see 460 in fig. 13A), configured to generate a navigation image (par. [0143] states “he ability to input organ geometry data into the control system, e.g., from an ultrasound or other pre-operative or real time image, the cutting region can be precisely registered within the organ”; see image 510 in fig. 17A; also see fig. 20B); an image planning module (claim 2 states “...an image planning module...”; see fig. 48A-B), configured to fit a continuous boundary position trajectory pre-planned on the navigation image to generate a motion control position trajectory (see fig. 20B-C and FIG21C-D; par. [0241] states “The treatment profile 520 comprises a radius 522 extending from a central reference location to an outer portion of the cut tissue boundary”; claim 2 states “ configured to fit a boundary position trajectory pre-planned on the navigation image to generate a motion control position trajectory”); and convert the motion control position trajectory into a water jet cutter coordinate system (claim 2 states “convert the motion control position trajectory into a water jet cutter coordinate system”; par. [0202], [0257], [0258]), then perform calculation and send motion position trajectory parameters for each axis corresponding to water jet cutter jet action points (see par. [0258]); a motion control module (claim 2 states “a motion control module”; par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A), configured to receive the motion position trajectory parameters for each axis (claim 2 states “configured to receive the motion position trajectory parameters for each axis”; see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A), generate and send motion position trajectory parameters in a linear motion axis (claim 2 states “generate and send motion position trajectory parameters in a linear motion axis”; see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A, 20B-C); and a rotary motion axis to a water jet cutter head (claim 2 states “a rotary motion axis to a water jet cutter head”; see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A, 20B-C), and send motion position control parameters in a jet flow axis (claim 2 states “send motion position control parameters in a jet flow axis”; par. [0146], [0388]) and a suction flow axis to a pipeline and hydraulic power module (see par. [0026], [0146], [0385], [0388]), and further configured to acquire the motion position trajectory parameters for each axis of the water jet cutter head for closed-loop control of the motion trajectory (claim 2 states “acquire the motion position trajectory parameters for each axis of the water jet cutter head for closed-loop control of the motion trajectory”; par. [0143] states “Closed-loop and real-time automation...”); a pipeline and hydraulic power module (claim 2 states “a pipeline and hydraulic power module”; par. [0146], [0388]; fig. 13A), configured to transfer liquid to the water jet cutter head according to the motion position control parameters in the jet flow axis sent by the motion control module (claim 2 states “configured to transfer liquid to the water jet cutter head according to the motion position control parameters in the jet flow axis sent by the motion control module”; par. [0146], [0388]) and perform a suction motion according to the motion position control parameters in the suction flow axis (claim 2 states “perform a suction motion”; see par. [0026], [0146], [0385], [0388]); and a water jet cutter head (claim 2 states “a water jet cutter head”; see distal end in fig. 24), configured to perform respective motions according to the motion position control parameters in the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis sent by the motion control module (claim 2 states “configured to perform respective motions according to the motion position control parameters in the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis sent by the motion control module”; see par. ;0146], [0209], [0210], [0218], [0388]; fig. 13A, 20B-C), and the motion position control parameters in the jet flow axis (claim 2 states “the motion position control parameters in the jet flow axis”; see par. ;0146], [0209], [0210], [0218], [0388]; fig. 13A, 20B-C).
Furthermore, Aljuri teaches a multi-axis linkage control method (see claim 2; fig. 13A; par. [0135], [0200], [0209], [0210], [0218], [0436]), and jet flow axis (par. [0146], [0388]), suction flow axis (see claim 2; see par. [0026], [0146], [0385], [0388]), linear motion axis (see claim 2 and see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A, 20B-C ) and rotary motion axis of the water jet cutter (see claim 2 and see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A, 20B-C ), but Aljuri fails to explicitly state wherein in the multi-axis linkage control method, an error in any one of the jet flow axis, the suction flow axis, the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis of the water jet cutter are correlated with errors in the other three axes.
The present application states that the multi axis linkage method is a PID controller method (see par. [0051] of the PG Pub. version of the specification). Colbrunn discloses a hybrid control system for robotic system. Colbrunn teaches using a similar multi axis linkage PID controller (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]) and teaches in the multi-axis linage control method, an error in any of the multi-axis are correlated with errors in other three axes (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a multi axis linkage PID controller (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]) and teaches in the multi-axis linage control method, an error in any of the multi-axis are correlated with errors in other three axes in the invention of Aljuri, as taught by Colbrunn, to provide an improved control system of the surgery device by correction trajectories. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Aljuri to incorporate the teaching of Colbrunn (e.g. the multi axis linkage PID controller) would provide the error in any one of the jet flow axes, the suction flow axis, the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis of the water jet cutter are correlated with errors in the other three axes.
Regarding claim 2, Aljuri shows wherein the motion control position trajectory comprises a jet effective length, a jet long-axis position and a cross-sectional angle (see claim 3; par. [0173]-[0177], [0202]); and the motion position trajectory parameters for each axis comprise an action point jet length in the water jet cutter coordinate system (par. [0173]-[0177], [0202]), an action point cross-sectional angle (par. par. [0173]-[0177], [0202]), and further comprises an action point jet long-axis position and/or an action point jet long-axis velocity (par. par. [0173]-[0177], [0202]).
Regarding claim 3, Aljuri and Colbrunn disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Aljuri teaches closed-loop control of a trajectory planning position loop (see par. [0143]; claim 2), and determining a trajectory planning position loop is a difference between a boundary position on the continuous boundary position trajectory at the current moment of measurement and an action point trajectory position obtained by actual measurement (see par. [0142], [0401]; claim 2), and Colbrunn teaches an error value of the trajectory planning position loop is a difference between current moment of measurement and an action point trajectory position obtained by actual measurement (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of an error value of the trajectory planning position loop is a difference between current moment of measurement and an action point trajectory position obtained by actual measurement in the invention of Aljuri, as taught by Colbrunn, to provide an improved control system of the surgery device by correction trajectories.
Regarding claim 4, Aljuri and Colbrunn disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore as stated above in claim 1, Aljuri teaches a multi-axis linkage control method (see claim 2; fig. 13A; par. [0135], [0200], [0209], [0210], [0218], [0436]) and jet flow axis (par. [0146], [0388]), suction flow axis (see claim 2; see par. [0026], [0146], [0385], [0388]), linear motion axis (see claim 2 and see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A, 20B-C ) and rotary motion axis of the water jet cutter (see claim 2 and see par. [0209], [0210], [0218]; fig. 13A, 20B-C ) and Colbrunn teaches errors in the multi-axis PID control (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]), and teaches similar algorithm as recited in claim 4 to calculate the errors in multi-axis PID control (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of errors in the multi-axis PID control, and similar algorithm recited in claim 4 to calculate the errors in multi-axis PID control in the invention of Aljuri, as taught by Colbrunn, to provide a improved control system of the surgery device by correction trajectories. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Aljuri to incorporate the teaching of Colbrunn (e.g. the multi axis linkage PID controller) would provide the errors in the jet flow axis, the suction flow axis, the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis of the water jet cutter.
Regarding claim 5, Aljuri shows wherein a miniaturized laser range finder or hydrophone in synchronized motion with a nozzle is installed in the water jet cutter head for obtaining the action point jet long-axis position of the water jet cutter in real time (see par. [0132], [0150], [0348], [0349]).
Regarding claim 7, Aljuri shows wherein the imaging module further comprises: a biplanar ultrasound probe or a three-dimensional ultrasound probe (see par. [0300] and claim 4); the biplanar ultrasound probe or the three-dimensional ultrasound probe is configured to obtain ultrasound images (see par. [0300] and claim 4); and the biplanar ultrasound probe is configured to obtain biplanar ultrasound images (see par. [0300] and claim 4), and the three-dimensional ultrasound probe is configured to obtain three-dimensional ultrasound images (see par. [0300] and claim 4).
Regarding claim 9, Aljuri shows wherein the image planning module is configured to perform piecewise fitting of the continuous boundary position trajectory to generate motion control position trajectories for each segment combined to form the motion control position trajectory (see par. [0207] and fig. 20B).
Regarding claim 10, Aljuri shows wherein the image planning module is further configured to convert the motion control position trajectory into a spatial position trajectory in the water jet cutter coordinate system through a coordinate transform and by an incremental control method, and then calculate motion position trajectory parameters for each axis (see par. [0207], fig. 20B).
Regarding claim 11, Aljuri shows wherein the image planning module is configured to take key point image positions on a pre-designed navigation image as accurate information during fitting (see fig. 17A-B, 19, 21C-F and 21G).
Regarding claim 12, Aljuri shows wherein the image planning module is further configured to interpolate each of the motion voxels in accordance with a motion trajectory when the water jet cutter is actually operated so as to generate the motion control position trajectory (see claim 2, 3, 16; par. [0173]-[0177], [0202], [0248], [0250]).
Regarding claim 13, Aljuri shows wherein the motion control module is configured to acquire motion position parameters in the jet flow axis (see claim 2, 3, 16; par. [0173]-[0177], [0202], [0248], [0250]), the linear motion axis and the rotary motion axis of the water jet cutter and positions of the continuous boundary position trajectory in the water jet cutter coordinate system in real time (see claim 2, 3, 16; par. [0063], [0173]-[0177], [0202], [0248], [0250]), and Colbrunn teaches subtract corresponding coordinates to obtain an error value of the trajectory planning position loop (see abstract; par. [0035], [0048], [0125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of subtract corresponding coordinates to obtain an error value of the trajectory planning position loop in the invention of Aljuri, as taught by Colbrunn, to provide an improved control system of the surgery device by correction trajectories.
Regarding claim 14, Aljuri shows wherein the motion control module is configured to combine the motion position trajectory parameters in the jet flow axis of the water jet cutter acquired in lag time by a cross-sectional image with the motion position trajectory parameters in the rotary motion axis and the linear motion axis of the water jet cutter acquired in real time, to perform closed-loop control of a trajectory planning position loop by a time-lag system regulation method (see par. [0142], [0143]).
Regarding claim 15, Aljuri shows wherein the image planning module is further configured to perform piecewise fitting of the continuous boundary position trajectory by using stepped line segments to obtain the motion control position trajectories for each segment (see fig. 20B-C and FIG21C-D; par. [0207], [0241]).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the image planning module is further configured to perform piecewise fitting of the continuous boundary position trajectory by a straight line segment interpolation fitting method to obtain the motion control position trajectories for each segment (see fig. 17A, 17D, 20B-C, fig. 21C-D, Fig. 21G; par. [0241]).
Claims 6 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljuri et al. (US 2026/0013896; hereinafter Aljuri), in view of Colbrunn et al. (US 2021/0229279; hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Staid et al. (US 2021/0137612; hereinafter Staid).
Regarding claim 6, Aljuri and Colbrunn disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Aljuri shows wherein the imaging module further comprises: motor (see par. [0142]) and an imaging probe (see par. [0200]); the motor is configured to drive the imaging probe to move to obtain navigation images of various positions (see par. [0142], fig. 13A), but fails to explicitly state an electric stepper.
Staid discloses a surgical probe for tissue resection with robotic arms. Staid teaches an electric stepper (see par. [0055] and [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of an electric stepper in the invention of Aljuri and Colbrunn, as taught by Staid, to provide precise movement with accurate positioning of the imaging probe.
Regarding claim 8, Aljuri and Colbrunn disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Aljuri shows wherein the imaging module further comprises: obtain a three-dimensional image (see par. [0300]), but fails to explicitly state a MRI system.
Staid discloses a surgical probe for tissue resection with robotic arms. Staid teaches a MRI system (see par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a MRI system in the invention of Aljuri and Colbrunn, as taught by Staid, to provide high resolution of soft tissue.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aljuri et al. (US 2026/0013896; hereinafter Aljuri), in view of Colbrunn et al. (US 2021/0229279; hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baumgartner et al. (US 2014/0303486; hereinafter Baumgartner).
Regarding claim 17, Aljuri and Colbrunn disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Aljuri shows previous acquired in advance image (see par. [0391] and a cross-sectional navigation image acquired at the current moment (see par. [0240]), and perform measurement to obtain the motion position trajectory parameters in the jet flow axis of the water jet cutter (see claim 2 and fig. 20B-C), but fail to explicitly state subtract and filter to obtain a high-frequency image signal.
Baumgartner discloses a surgical navigation planning system. Baumgartner subtract and filter to obtain a high-frequency image signal (see par. [0322]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of subtract and filter to obtain a high-frequency image signal in the invention of Aljuri and Colbrunn, as taught by Baumgartner, to be able to filter out the healthy tissue from the image to clearly highlight the region of interest.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights