DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoyanov et al. (US 11,615,884) in view of Samosky et al. (US 2013/0323700) and also Moore et al. (US 2023/0320806).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 19-20, Stoyanov discloses a computer based medical simulation system comprising a user and a selection of tools, which are identified and tracked with regard to location and position, wherein the tracking comprises image-based tracking of the tools based upon fiducial markers on the tools, and wherein the tools are monitored using said markers with regard to position and orientation, and feedback is provided with regard to a simulated medical procedure. See col. 1:33 – col. 2:31.
Stoyanov does not appear to disclose a physical model (i.e. a physical anatomical model, as per claim 20). However, the use of such in similar simulations is established, as is disclosed by the simulation system of Samosky in paragraph 0035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider such a scheme in order to provide a realistic simulation.
Stoyanov discloses multiple labeled tools (labeled as per claims 5 and 14) for selection in col. 14: 30-42, but does not disclose a tray with the selection of tools, or a machine learning element (as per claims 5 and 14). However, these are common simulation elements. Consider the simulation system of Moore, wherein these concepts are disclosed in paragraphs 0018-0020. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such concepts with the Stoyanov system, in order to provide a convenient interface for selection (tray and labeling), and to provide optimization (machine learning).
Regarding claims 2-4, and 11-13 Stoyanov discloses wherein the tool has dynamic feedback capability including LEDs (visual) and auditory haptic feedback with regard to insertion into the training surface. See col. 8: 46-64.
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Stoyanov discloses wherein the feedback comprises instructions and procedural order warnings for the tool. See col. 9: 15-32.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16-17, Stoyanov discloses multiple configurations for tools and selection thereof in col. 14: 30-42, and magnetic tracking of such tools in col. 10:14-20, but does not mention specifically an ultrasound probe. However, Samosky discloses a tracked mock ultrasound probe tracked by a magnetic sensor system in addition to the tool, wherein the mock ultrasound image is displayed comprising the tracked tool. See paragraph 0042. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider such with the Stoyanov system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Stoyanov discloses using the position information to determine skill-based metrics. See col. 9: 27-32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights