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 .
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 - 20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,205,315 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,205,315. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application is obvious in view of the claims 1 - 20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,205,315. Specifically, the claims of U.S. Patent (12,205,315) are same elements, same function and same result as claims 1 – 20 of present application. Moreover, omission of reference elements and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
More specifically, the claims 1 - 20 of the present application is the same elements, same function and same result as claims 1 - 20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,205,315, specially, the independent claims 1, 13 and 20 of the present application is the same invention as the independent claims 1, 13, and 16 plus dependent claim 12 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, and the difference of the limitations are wordings differently.
For example;
Instant Application
U.S Patent 12,205,315
1. A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: access, during a surgical procedure that involves resecting a piece of tissue from a body, a plurality of depth datasets for the resected piece of tissue, each depth dataset in the plurality of depth datasets captured as a different portion of a surface of the resected piece of tissue is presented to a stereoscopic imaging device by an instrument that holds the resected piece of tissue in a manner that sequentially presents the different portions of the surface to the stereoscopic imaging device, the accessing of the plurality of depth datasets including generating each of the plurality of depth datasets by determining depth data for a respective portion of the surface of the resected piece of tissue using a stereoscopic depth detection technique that employs stereoscopic imaging elements of the stereoscopic imaging device; determine, during the surgical procedure and based on the plurality of depth datasets, an estimated volume of the resected piece of tissue; and indicate, during the surgical procedure, whether the estimated volume of the resected piece of tissue is within a predetermined threshold of an expected volume of the resected piece of tissue.
The other independent claims 13 and 20 are same as claim 1.
1. A system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: access, during a surgical procedure that involves resecting a piece of tissue from a body, a plurality of depth datasets for the resected piece of tissue, each depth dataset in the plurality of depth datasets captured as a different portion of a surface of the resected piece of tissue is presented to an imaging device by an instrument that holds the resected piece of tissue in a manner that sequentially presents the different portions of the surface to the imaging device; determine, during the surgical procedure and based on the plurality of depth datasets, an estimated volume of the resected piece of tissue;
12. The system of claim 1, wherein: the imaging device is implemented as a stereoscopic imaging device that includes stereoscopic imaging elements; and the accessing of the plurality of depth datasets includes generating each of the plurality of depth datasets by determining depth data for the respective portion of the surface of the resected piece of tissue using a stereoscopic depth detection technique that employs the stereoscopic imaging elements of the stereoscopic imaging device.
The additional limitation is not affecting the scope of the present invention. In addition, even though the claim of present application omitted or rearrangement of the claim structure (simply rearranged and restructured the claim elements using same or similar words), the limitation of independent claim 1, 13, or 16 plus dependent claim 12 of the U. S. Patent No. 12,205,315 is encompassed the claimed invention of the independent claims 1, 13 and 20 of the present application.
Therefore, the function and results of the claim invention of present application are same as the claim invention of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 of the present application are same function and same result as the claims 1 – 20 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Furthermore, claim 2 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 2 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 3 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 3 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 4 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 4 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 5 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 5 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 6 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 6 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 7 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 7 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 8 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 8 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 9 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 10 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 10 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 11 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 1 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 12 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 11 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 14 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 2 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 15 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 3 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 16 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 4 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 17 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 5 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 18 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 6 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Claim 19 of the present application are same function, same elements and same result as claim 7 of the U.S. Patent (12,205,315).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shirazian et al. (US 2022/0414914) discloses System and Methods for Determining a Volume with Resected Tissue During a Surgical Procedure.
Fan et al. (US 2014/0369584) discloses Method and Apparatus for Determining Tumor Shift During Surgery Using a Stereo-Optical Three-Dimensional Surface Mapping System.
Sawyer (US 2005/0041843) discloses Dynamic Tumor Treatment System.
Pheiffer et al. (US 2017/0105601) discloses Method and System for Calculating Resected Tissue Volume from 2D/2.5D Intraoperative Image Data.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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, see http://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.
J.L
August 20, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights