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 Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 11, and all dependent claims thereof, recite the limitation “inserting a camera and a laser emitter into the patient near the target organ so that laser beams embittered by the laser emitter at different tracked moving positions hit the surface of the target organ at respective points which are captured by the camera in an image” (emphasis added). The word “embittered” appears to be in error and may have been intended to be ‘emitted’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geurten, Jordan, et al. "Endoscopic laser surface scanner for minimally invasive abdominal surgeries." International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. (hereinafter “Geurten”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11: Geurten discloses a system and method comprising: deploying a tracker in a tracker coordinate system in a surgery for operating on a target organ of a patient (Abstract, 2 Methods and Materials); inserting a camera and a laser emitter into the patient near the target organ so that laser beams embittered by the laser emitter at different tracked moving positions hit the surface of the target organ at respective points which are captured by the camera in an image (figs. 1 and 2); a three-dimensional (3D) point cloud determiner implemented by a processor and configured for, with respect to each of the respective points, deriving a laser line equation of a laser line connecting the laser emitter and the respective point (fig. 1 and all associated description), deriving an image line equation of an image line connecting the camera and the respective point, wherein the laser line equation and the image line equation are expressed in the tracker coordinate system (fig. 1 and all associated description), and obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate of the respective point in the tracker coordinate system based on the laser line equation and the image line equation (2.2 Surface Reconstruction as Line-to-Plane Intersection); and generating a point cloud based on the 3D coordinates in the tracker coordinate system for the respective points representing a depth map of the captured part of the surface of the target organ (3 Results; figs. 5-6).
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Geurten discloses wherein the camera is coupled with a camera marker with a first spatial relation (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2; DRF C); the laser emitter is coupled with a laser emitter marker with a second spatial relation (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2; DRF L), wherein the camera marker and the laser emitter marker are outside of the patient’s body and are tracked by the tracker in the tracker coordinate system, a tracked 3D location of the camera can be determined from tracked position of the camera marker based on the first spatial relation, and a tracked 3D location of the laser emitter can be determined from tracked position of the laser emitter marker based on the second spatial relation (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Geurten discloses wherein the step of deriving a laser line equation of a laser line comprises: determining an initial laser line equation in a laser emitter coordinate system for the laser line based on the tracked 3D location of the laser emitter and operating parameters of the laser emitter; and converting the initial laser line equation in the laser emitter coordinate system to the laser line equation in the tracker coordinate system based on a laser-tracker transformation matrix obtained via calibration (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2, 2.1 Laser Beam Calibration).
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Geurten discloses wherein the step of deriving an image line equation of an image line comprises: determining a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate of a pixel in the image corresponding to a projection of the respective point; obtaining an initial image line equation based on the 2D coordinate, the tracked 3D location of the camera, and operating parameters of the camera in a camera coordinate system; and converting the initial image line equation in the camera coordinate system to the image line equation in the tracker coordination system based on a camera-tracker transformation matrix obtained via calibration (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2, 2.2 Surface Reconstruction as Line-to-Plane Intersection).
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Geurten discloses wherein the 3D coordinate of the respective point in the tracker coordinate system is obtained by: identifying a meeting coordinate in the tracker coordinate system that satisfies both the laser line equation and the image line equation; and providing the meeting coordinate in the tracker coordinate system as the 3D coordinate of the respective point (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2, 2.2 Surface Reconstruction as Line-to-Plane Intersection).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Geurten discloses wherein the 3D coordinate of the respective point in the tracker coordinate system is obtained by: identifying a first point on the laser line satisfying the laser line equation and a second point on the image line satisfying the image line equation so that a distance between the first and the second points represents a minimized distance between the laser line and the image line; selecting an approximate point between the first and the second point along a line connecting the first and the second point; and obtaining a 3D coordinate of the approximate point in the tracker coordinate system as the 3D coordinate of the respective point (2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2, 2.2 Surface Reconstruction as Line-to-Plane Intersection).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Geurten further discloses wherein the respective points include: additional hits on the surface by beams from a diffractive optical element (DOE) placed in front of the laser emitter, wherein the DOE yields multiple beams for each of the laser beam from the laser emitter that passes through the DOE; additional laser beams emitted by the laser emitter at the different tracked moving positions; and the combination thereof (2 Methods and Materials - diffractive lens with plane divergence 120 degrees, figs. 1 and 2, 2.1 Laser Beam Calibration).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Geurten further discloses retrieving a 3D model for the target model previously constructed based on data related to the patient; and fitting the 3D model to the point cloud to obtain a fitted 3D model in the tracker coordinate system that aligns with the target organ and fits the surface of the target organ represented by the point cloud (3 Results, figs. 5-6 which show the point cloud overlayed on either a model generated from the endoscopic images or by CT).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geurten, Jordan, et al. "Endoscopic laser surface scanner for minimally invasive abdominal surgeries." International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018 (hereinafter “Geurten”).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 19, and 20: While Geurten does not explicitly disclose the steps of registering the model in the tracker coordinate system to a robot coordinate system, nor the specific steps of navigating a robot using the results of the system/method, Geurten does disclose that this is the purpose of developing the system/method – " designed for robotic-assisted surgery", "designed to be compatible with the da Vinci robotic system ", "Our proposed system can be readily applied to other surgical scenarios such as neuro and orthopaedic surgery, and is designed to be compatible with the da Vinci surgical robotic systems."
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the system/method of Geurten to performing robotic surgery, including the steps of registration and navigation, in view of Geurten’s explicit intent for the use of the disclosed method/system being to support robotic surgery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Furukawa, Ryo, et al. "Simultaneous shape and camera‐projector parameter estimation for 3D endoscopic system using CNN‐based grid‐oneshot scan." Healthcare Technology Letters 6.6 (2019): 249-254 – discloses an endoscopic camera and laser ranging system
Furukawa, Ryo, et al. "Single and multi-frame auto-calibration for 3D endoscopy with differential rendering." 2023 45th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC). IEEE, 2023 – discloses an endoscopic camera and laser ranging system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Brian Casler can be reached at (571) 272-4956. 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights