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 § 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 22-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2012/0106702 to Feke et al in view of U. S. Publication No. 2018/0270474 to Liu et. al.
Regarding Claim 2 and 22, Feke teaches a surgical system comprising: a processor and memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing executable instructions to cause the surgical system to: receive, via one or more user interfaces providing a selection of a plurality of image modalities, a first selection of a first image modality and a second selection of a second image modality, the plurality of image modalities comprising different types of image enhancement to image data; produce the first image modality of a first portion of the surgical scene based at least on the first selection of the first modality image; produce the second image modality of a second portion of the surgical scene based at least on the second selection of the second modality image.
Feke teaches all of the above colimitations but does not expressly teach display simultaneously the first image modality of the first portion of the surgical scene within a region of a display and the second image modality of the second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display.
Liu teaches display simultaneously the first image modality of the first portion of the surgical scene within a region of a display and the second image modality of the second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display (figs. 2-4, 9, 10, and 18a-I; fig. 26 teaches camera 1 images first scene of the target region element 336 and camera 2 images second scene of the target region element 326, as such meets the claimed limitations, and the rejection is maintained).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feke with a setup such that first and second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display as taught by Liu, since such a setup would result in a more clear view of the surgical site, as both the first and second image are simultaneously displayed, helping the surgeon with proper decision making.
Regarding Claims 3 and 23, Feke teaches that the first image modality includes one of clear, Near Band Imaging, Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging; and wherein the second image modality includes a different one of Near Band Imaging, Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging (para 017-020).
Regarding Claims 4 and 24, Feke teaches that that the different types of image enhancement comprises two or more of Near Band Imaging, Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging (para 017-020).
Regarding Claim 7 and 27, Feke teaches that the format selection comprises one of a stitch, picture-in-picture or annotated format (abstract para 0021, figs. 8c and 9 teaches multiple cameras/imaging modalities for imaging and combining the first image from the first camera and second image from the second camera to generate a combined image).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2012/0106702 to Feke et al in view of U. S. Publication No. 2018/0270474 to Liu et. al. in view of U. S. Publication No. 2012/0224787 to Imai.
Regarding Claims 5 and 25, Feke and Liu teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach one or more user interfaces providing a selection of formats for a multi-modal display, a format selection from a plurality of different formats.
Imai teaches one or more user interfaces providing a selection of formats for a multi-modal display, a format selection from a plurality of different formats (para 0027 and claim 8).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feke and Liu with a setup to modify image format as taught by Imai, since such a setup would result in betting image processing/displaying for the operator.
Regarding Claims 6 and 26, Liu teaches to use the format selection to display the first image modality of the first portion of the surgical scene within a region of the display and the second image modality of the second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display (figs. 2-4, 9, 10, and 18a-I; fig. 26 teaches camera 1 images first scene of the target region element 336 and camera 2 images second scene of the target region element 326).
Claim(s) 8, 17-21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Publication No. 2012/0106702 to Feke et al in view of U. S. Publication No. 2018/0270474 to Liu et. al. and further in view of U. S. Publication No. 2019/0290374 to Ramadorai.
Regarding Claims 8 and 28, Feke, and Liu teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach toto receive at least the first selection of the first modality image or the second selection of the second modality image responsive to eye tracking input.
Ramadorai teaches an eye tracking means for tracking the eye and making
image selection using eye movement (para 019 and claim 14 teaches tracking eye
movement and using eye movement for image selection).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify
Feke and Liu with an eye tracking means for tracking the eye and making image
selection using eye movement as taught by Ramadorai, since such a setup would result
in easy image selection by the user.
Regarding Claim 17, Feke teaches a surgical system comprising: a processor and memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing executable instructions to cause the surgical system to: receive, via one or more user interfaces providing a selection of a plurality of image modalities, a first selection of a first image modality and a second selection of a second image modality, the plurality of image modalities comprising different types of image enhancement to image data; produce the first image modality of a first portion of the surgical scene based at least on the first selection of the first modality image; produce the second image modality of a second portion of the surgical scene based at least on the second selection of the second modality image.
Feke teaches all of the above colimitations but does not expressly teach at least the first selection of the first modality image or the second selection of the second modality image responsive to eye tracking input and display simultaneously the first image modality of the first portion of the surgical scene within a region of a display and the second image modality of the second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display.
Liu teaches display simultaneously the first image modality of the first portion of the surgical scene within a region of a display and the second image modality of the second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display (figs. 2-4, 9, 10, and 18a-I; fig. 26 teaches camera 1 images first scene of the target region element 336 and camera 2 images second scene of the target region element 326, as such meets the claimed limitations, and the rejection is maintained).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Feke with a setup such that first and second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display as taught by Liu, since such a setup would result in a more clear view of the surgical site, as both the first and second image are simultaneously displayed, helping the surgeon with proper decision making.
Feke, and Liu teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach receive at least the first selection of the first modality image or the second selection of the second modality image responsive to eye tracking input.
Ramadorai teaches an eye tracking means for tracking the eye and making
image selection using eye movement (para 019 and claim 14 teaches tracking eye
movement and using eye movement for image selection).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify
Feke and Liu with an eye tracking means for tracking the eye and making image
selection using eye movement as taught by Ramadorai, since such a setup would result
in easy image selection by the user.
Regarding Claim 18, Feke teaches that the first image modality includes one of clear, Near Band Imaging, Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging; and wherein the second image modality includes a different one of Near Band Imaging, Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging (para 017-020).
Regarding Claim 19, Feke teaches that that the different types of image enhancement comprises two or more of Near Band Imaging, Raman spectroscopy, fluorescence and hyperspectral imaging (para 017-020).
Regarding Claims 20 and 21, Liu teaches to use the format selection to display the first image modality of the first portion of the surgical scene within a region of the display and the second image modality of the second portion of the surgical scene within a different region of the display (figs. 2-4, 9, 10, and 18a-I; fig. 26 teaches camera 1 images first scene of the target region element 336 and camera 2 images second scene of the target region element 326).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights