DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ummalaneni (US 2018/0368920 A1) in view of Wilson (US 2023/0008419 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Ummalaneni discloses a controller for a medical system, comprising:
a processing system; (paragraph 61)
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the controller to: (paragraph 17)
receive first image data representing a three-dimensional (3D) model of an anatomy; (The modeling system receives medical image data, generates a 3D volume of the patient luminal anatomy and stores data representing that model, see paragraphs 147-149 and 176.)
estimate a pose of an instrument within the anatomy based at least in part on the first image data; (Features derived from actual instrument images are compared with features derived from virtual images of the 3D anatomical model. The matching virtual location is used to determined the estimated instrument pose, including position and angular components, see paragraphs 151-155 and 190-193.)
generate a first cross-sectional view of the 3D model based on the first image data and the estimated pose of the instrument; (Ummalaneni described a cross section or slice of the 3D model and a slice of the 3D model at the estimated instrument position, see paragraphs 128 and 174.)
display a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes the first cross-sectional view (The command console/display modules present navigation imagery, including the cross section or slice of the 3D model at the estimated position, see paragraphs 128, 134-140 and 174.) but fails to disclose an instrument model overlaid thereon based at least in part on the estimated pose; receive user input associated with the instrument model; and determine an updated pose for the instrument based on the received user input.
In related art, Wilson discloses an instrument model overlaid thereon based at least in part on the estimated pose; (Wilson renders multiple 2D views of a 3D reconstruction and generates instrument guide symbols from localization data on those views, see paragraphs 210, 221-224 and 230-232.) receive user input associated with the instrument model; (Wilson allows the user, through a touchscreen or mouse or other input device, to move or drag a graphical overlay associated with the instrument trajectory, including directional and rotational adjustments, see paragraphs 202, 205-206 and 323-324.) and determine an updated pose for the instrument based on the received user input. (Wilson calculates an updated desired trajectory or pose for the robotic manipulator and instrument guide based on the received GUI input and then uses the updated pose calculations to move the instrument guide to the desired pose, see paragraphs 208-209 and 325-327.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Wilson into the teachings of Ummalaneni to effectively improve the performance with respect to runtime, robustness and accuracy.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein segmenting the first image data into one or more image segments based on one or more image processing operations, the pose of the instrument being estimated based at least in part on the one or more image segments. (paragraphs 148, 176 and 190-192)
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the first cross-sectional view is centered around the instrument model in the GUI. (paragraphs 128, 140 and 174; also see Wilson, paragraphs 221-232)
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the GUI includes a feature for rotating or translating the instrument model relative to the first cross-sectional view based on the user input. (Wilson, paragraphs 202, 205-208 and 323-325)
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the GUI includes a panning feature for panning the first cross-sectional view relative to the instrument model based on the user input. (Wilson, paragraphs 219, 221-224 and 303)
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the estimated pose of the instrument includes an estimated position and an estimated heading of the instrument, the method further comprising: estimating a roll axis of the instrument based on the estimated heading of the instrument, the first cross-sectional view being orthogonal to the estimated roll axis. (paragraphs 144-145, 192; also see Wilson, paragraphs 40-42 and 216-219)
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein generating a second cross-sectional view of the 3D model based on the first image data and the estimated pose of the instrument so that the second cross-sectional view is orthogonal to the estimated roll axis and the first cross-sectional view, the GUI further including the second cross-sectional view. (Wilson, see paragraphs 42, 219 and 221)
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein generating a 3D view of the instrument based on the first image data; and superimposing a 3D instrument model onto the 3D view based on the estimated pose of the instrument, the GUI further including the 3D view having the 3D instrument model superimposed thereon. (paragraphs 139-140 and 144)
Regarding claim 11, Ummalaneni, as modified by Wilson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the GUI further displays one or more images depicting examples of correct and incorrect instrument alignment. (Wilson, see paragraphs 229-232 and figures 7H-7K)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights