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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11, and all dependents thereof, recite the limitation “transforming the point cloud in the tracker coordinate system to a transformed fitted 3D model in a robot coordinate system.” It is unclear what “fitted” means in this context. No step of generating a model or fitting the model has been set forth, and it is unclear if a “fitted” model is a result of the particular point cloud transform or if it is merely the result of any coordinate transform. For the purposes of further examination, “transformed fitted 3D model” will be interpreted to be the result of transforming the point cloud from the tracker coordinate system to the robot coordinate system in any known manner.
Claims 9 and 19, and all dependents thereof, recite the limitation “transforming the fitted 3D model in the tracker coordinate system to a transformed fitted 3D model in a robot coordinate system.” It is not clear if “a transformed fitted 3D model” of claims 9 and 19 is the same as or distinct from “a transformed fitted 3D model” in claims 1 and 11. It is unclear how many transformed fitted models must be generated. For the purposes of further examination, it will be assumed that “a transformed fitted 3D model” may refer to any “transformed fitted 3D model,” including the “transformed fitted 3D model” of claims 1 and 11.
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) 1-20 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”) in view of 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 (hereinafter “Furukawa”) and Hu et al. (CN 116077182 A, May 09, 2023) (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, as best understood based on limitations which are indefinite: 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 emitted 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). Geurton discloses a laser plane emitter that must be calibrated using a specialized phantom and (manually) swept across the target organ in order to acquire 3D data.
Furukawa, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a “one-shot” acquisition system which uses a structured grid to acquire an entire 3D field of view and which auto-calibrates by determining a line-to-line intersection between each camera pixel and the corresponding projector location (“respective points”) based on an image line equation of an image line connecting the camera and the respective point (fig. 3, ray ri to si) and a laser line equation of a laser line connecting the laser emitter and the respective point (fig. 3, ray si to qi). This process generates a correspondence map relating every captured surface point (“respective points”) to the corresponding projector location and camera pixel (IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION) and allows 3D shape reconstruction from a single frame (III. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AND ALGORITHM).
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 modify the method and system of Geurton by replacing the laser plane emitter with the structured light grid of Furukawa in order to achieve the advantages of auto-calibration without a specialized phantom and the ability to acquire an entire 3D shape in a single frame in view of the teachings of Furukawa.
Further regarding claims 1 and 11: Geurton and Furukawa disclose 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 (Furukawa – fig. 3, IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION), deriving an image line equation of an image line connecting the camera and the respective point (Furukawa – fig. 3, IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION), wherein the laser line equation and the image line equation are expressed in the tracker coordinate system (Geurton - 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 such that the 3D coordinate is based on a line-to-line intersection between the laser line and the image line (Geurton – Results, figs. 5-6; Furukawa – figs. 3, 4, and 6); 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 respective points of the surface of the target organ (Geurton – Results, figs. 5-6; Furukawa – figs. 3, 4, and 6).
Further regarding claims 1 and 11: While Geurton discloses that robotic surgery 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;" Geurton and Furukawa do not explicitly describe a step of transforming the point cloud in the tracker coordinate system to a transformed fitted 3D model in a robot coordinate system.
Hu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a robotic surgery system comprising at least one manipulator/robotic arm, a structured light camera, and a surgical tool (pg. 1) where a processor of the robotic system is configured to perform a method comprising generating a point cloud of the target area including the patient’s skin using the structured light camera (pg. 3, step 101 and description; pg. 5, step 201 and description; pg. 6, step 301 and description) and then and transforming the point cloud in its original coordinate system to a transformed fitted 3D model in a robot coordinate system (pg. 3, step 102 and description; pg. 5, step 202 and description; pg. 7, step 303 and description). Hu further discloses that using the above technical solution, real-time acquisition of the user's body surface information based on the structured light camera, and the use of ray tracing to detect the user's skin and soft tissue and prevent the knife from colliding with the user (pg. 2, paragraph 7).
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 modify the system and method of Geurton and Furukawa by transforming the point cloud in its original coordinate system (tracking coordinate system of Geurton) to a transformed fitted 3D model in a robot coordinate system as taught by Hu in view of the explicit suggestions of Geurton to adapt the method/system for performing robotic surgery and in order to achieve the advantages of Hu, including improved patient safety in avoiding unintentional collisions.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Geurten further 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: Furukawa further 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 (IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION, figs. 3-5).
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Furukawa further 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 (IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION, figs. 3-5).
Regarding claims 5 and 15: Geurten as modified by Furukawa further 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 (Geurton - 2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2, 2.2 Surface Reconstruction as Line-to-Plane Intersection; where the plane laser of Geurton has been replaced by grid laser of Furukawa - IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION, figs. 3-5).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Geurten as modified by Furukawa further 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 (Geurton - 2 Methods and Materials, figs. 1 and 2, 2.2 Surface Reconstruction as Line-to-Plane Intersection; where the plane laser of Geurton has been replaced by grid laser of Furukawa - IV. DIFFERENTIAL RENDERING FOR AUTO-CALIBRATION, figs. 3-5).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Furukawa 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 (III. SYSTEM CONFIGURATION AND ALGORITHM; fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Hu further discloses retrieving a 3D model for the target model previously constructed based on data related to the patient (pre-registered 3D bone surface model); 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 (pg. 6; pg. 7, at least step 303; the target point cloud is point cloud of the target surgical region including the bone and the soft tissue surrounding the bone).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, as best understood based on limitations which are indefinite: Hu further discloses transforming the fitted 3D model in the tracker coordinate system to a transformed fitted 3D model in a robot coordinate system (pg. 5, at least steps 202-206 and description; pgs. 7-8).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, as best understood based on limitations which are indefinite: Hu further discloses receiving a specified location on the surface of the target organ during the surgery (pg. 5, at least step 202 and description; pg. 6, paragraphs 1-6); identifying, from the transformed fitted 3D model, a 3D coordinate in the robot coordinate system for the specified location (pg. 5, at least step 202 and description; pg. 6, paragraphs 1-6); and controlling a robot arm holding a surgical instrument to reach the specified location on the surface of the target organ based on the 3D coordinate in the robot coordinated system (pg. 6, paragraphs 1-6; pg. 7, module 306 and description).
Response to Arguments
Objection to claims 1-20 is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of pending claims 1-20, file 06/24/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim, Juyoung, et al. "Integrating FireFly fluorescence into image guidance for the da Vinci robot." Medical Imaging 2021: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling. Vol. 11598. SPIE, 2021 – discloses registering a point cloud with a robotic surgical system
Huang, Tianqi, et al. "Augmented reality-based autostereoscopic surgical visualization system for telesurgery." International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 16.11 (2021): 1985-1997 - discloses registering a point cloud with a robotic surgical system
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Chris Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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