DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 19/034,736, filed 23 January 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/616,266, now U.S. Patent No. 12,238,433, filed 26 March 2024, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/213,360, now U.S. Patent No. 12,003,869, filed 23 June 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/972,625, now U.S. Patent No. 11,723,726, filed 25 October 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/317,191, now U.S. Patent No. 11,510,740, filed 11 May 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/441,645, now U.S. Patent No. 11,007,018, filed 14 June 2019, which claims domestic priority to Provisional Application No. 62/685,470, filed 15 June 2018.
Claims 1–20 are pending.
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 6 and 18 are objected to because of the following informality: “the second optical sensor is a disposed” is ungrammatical. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 6 and 7 be found allowable, claims 18 and 19 will be objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). For the purposes of search, claims 18 and 19 are assumed to be dependent on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 14, and 20 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, recites a rigid support structure distinct from an outer casing, but claim 1 already recites a narrower structural relationship that the rigid support structure is enclosed within the outer casing. As such, claim 2 is broader in scope than parent claim 1. Likewise, claim 14 also recites a rigid support structure distinct from an outer casing, but is dependent on claim 13 that recites the rigid support structure is enclosed within the outer casing.
Claim 20 recites the camera unit of claim 1 being configured to be mounted on an articulated arm of a cart assembly, but claim 1 already recites “a camera unit mounted to the articulated arm”, wherein the articulated arm is coupled to the cart assembly.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1–8 and 12–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0300816 A1 (“Yang”).
Yang, directed to an optical topology system for surgery, teaches with respect to claim 1 a surgical navigation system comprising:
a cart assembly comprising wheels and being moveable (Fig. 18, ¶ 0145; cart shown on Fig. 18 as having wheels);
a navigation computer supported by the cart assembly (id., control and processing unit 30 within the cart);
an articulated arm coupled to the cart assembly and being adjustable in multiple degrees of freedom (id., articulating arm 460 attached to cart); and
a camera unit mounted to the articulated arm (id., optical topology system 400 mounted on arm 460) and comprising:
an outer casing (Figs. 10–11, ¶ 0115; base portion 370 including transparent window)
a rigid support structure enclosed within the outer casing (Figs. 1–11, housing 310);
two first optical sensors coupled to the outer casing and each comprising sensing adapted to sense light in a near-infrared spectrum (¶ 0119, navigation cameras 340 that are IR-sensitive),
wherein the two first optical sensors are commonly fixed to the rigid support structure (Figs. 9, 11; navigation cameras 340 fixed within housing 310) and
are separated by a predefined distance on the rigid support structure so as to be stereoscopically arranged (¶ 0118, near-infrared navigation cameras 340 are “a calibrated stereo pair”);
a second optical sensor coupled to the outer casing and adapted to sense light in a visible light spectrum (Figs. 9, 10, ¶ 0116; cameras 320); and
a camera controller . . . being coupled to the navigation computer (¶ 0064–66, control and processing unit controls cameras),
the camera controller being configured to control the two first optical sensors and the second optical sensor for tracking an object within an operating room (¶¶ 0108–109, tracking module 50 tracks spatial position and orientation of objects).
The claimed invention differs from Yang in that the claimed invention specifies the camera controller is disposed within the outer casing. Yang, in contrast, teaches the control and processing module 30 is an external computer. However, it would have been obvious to one to ordinary skill in the art to embed functionality of the control and processing unit 30 in a device within housing 310, since rearranging prior art components in a way that does not modify the operation of the prior art device is not sufficient to establish patentability. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 2, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the rigid support structure is distinct from the outer casing (Figs. 10–11, base portion 370 distinct from housing 310).
Regarding claim 3, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the predefined distance by which the first two optical sensors are separated is at least 12 inches (M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(IV)(A) (change in size of a prior art component not sufficient to establish patentability).
Regarding claim 4, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the outer casing has an elongated shape defining a first end and an opposing second end (M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(IV)(B) (mere change in shape of a prior art device, for example, making the Yang optical topology system 400 elongated instead of circular, considered obvious design choice).
Regarding claim 5, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 4, wherein one of the first two optical sensors is disposed adjacent to the first end of the outer casing and the other one of the two first optical sensors is disposed adjacent to the opposing second end of the outer casing (Fig. 9, two navigation cameras 340 on opposite sides of center).
Regarding claim 6, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the second optical sensor is a [sic] disposed between the two first optical sensors (Fig. 9, cameras 320 are between navigation cameras 340 on the y-axis).
Regarding claim 7, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the second optical sensor is a video camera (¶ 0148, cameras can output video).
Regarding claim 8, Yang makes obvious the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the second optical sensor is a machine vision camera (¶ 0104, topology system described as a machine vision application).
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the surgical navigation system of claim 1, wherein the camera controller is configured to:
obtain, from the second optical sensor, data related to the object within the operating room (¶ 0052, tracking objects using optical sensors); and
modify control of each of the two first optical sensors based on the data of the object obtained from the second optical sensor (id., moving system based on tracked position).
Regarding claim 20, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 1, being configured to be mounted on an articulated arm of a cart assembly (Fig. 18, ¶ 0145; articulated arm 460 on cart).
Regarding claim 13, Yang makes obvious a camera unit for use with a surgical navigation system, the camera unit comprising:
an outer casing (Figs. 10–11, ¶ 0115; base portion 370 including transparent window)
a rigid support structure enclosed within the outer casing (Figs. 1–11, housing 310);
two first optical sensors coupled to the outer casing and each comprising sensing adapted to sense light in a near-infrared spectrum (¶ 0119, navigation cameras 340 that are IR-sensitive),
wherein the two first optical sensors are commonly fixed to the rigid support structure (Figs. 9, 11; navigation cameras 340 fixed within housing 310) and
are separated by a predefined distance on the rigid support structure so as to be stereoscopically arranged (¶ 0118, near-infrared navigation cameras 340 are “a calibrated stereo pair”);
a second optical sensor coupled to the outer casing and adapted to sense light in a visible light spectrum (Figs. 9, 10, ¶ 0116; cameras 320); and
a camera controller . . . being coupled to the navigation computer (¶ 0064–66, control and processing unit controls cameras),
the camera controller being configured to control the two first optical sensors and the second optical sensor for tracking an object within an operating room (¶¶ 0108–109, tracking module 50 tracks spatial position and orientation of objects).
The claimed invention differs from Yang in that the claimed invention specifies the camera controller is disposed within the outer casing. Yang, in contrast, teaches the control and processing module 30 is an external computer. However, it would have been obvious to one to ordinary skill in the art to embed functionality of the control and processing unit 30 in a device within housing 310, since rearranging prior art components in a way that does not modify the operation of the prior art device is not sufficient to establish patentability. M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 14, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 13, wherein the rigid support structure is distinct from the outer casing (Figs. 10–11, base portion 370 distinct from housing 310).
Regarding claim 15, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 13, wherein the predefined distance by which the first two optical sensors are separated is at least 12 inches (M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(IV)(A) (change in size of a prior art component not sufficient to establish patentability).
Regarding claim 16, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 13, wherein the outer casing has an elongated shape defining a first end and an opposing second end (M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(IV)(B) (mere change in shape of a prior art device, for example, making the Yang optical topology system 400 elongated instead of circular, considered obvious design choice).
Regarding claim 17, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 16, wherein one of the first two optical sensors is disposed adjacent to the first end of the outer casing and the other one of the two first optical sensors is disposed adjacent to the opposing second end of the outer casing (Fig. 9, two navigation cameras 340 on opposite sides of center).
Regarding claim 18, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 1[3], wherein the second optical sensor is a [sic] disposed between the two first optical sensors (Fig. 9, cameras 320 are between navigation cameras 340 on the y-axis).
Regarding claim 19, Yang makes obvious the camera unit of claim 1[3], wherein the second optical sensor is a video camera or a machine vision camera
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of International Publication No. WO 2018/171851 A1 (“Hansen”). Claim 9 specifies the optical sensors have a 1 kHz sampling rate. Yang uses a stroboscopic frequency to project structured light at over 1 kHz (e.g., ¶ 0089), but only claims more modest imaging frequency, with a “high-speed camera” at best being described as operating “greater than 300 Hz”. However, Hansen, directed to a 3D modelling system for surgery, teaches with respect to claim 9:
wherein each of the two first optical sensors is configured to support a sampling rate of 1 kHz for receiving light signals to track the object (42:19–25, multi-camera image acquisition device that has a frame rate of “up to about 1000 Hz”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art at the time of effective filing to modify Yang to use higher-speed cameras as in Hansen, in order to select a frame rate appropriate to the intended use of real-time 3D modelling of a surgical site. Hansen 42:11–14.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0219552 A1 (“Ackerman”). Claim 11 recites that the two first sensors track the object at a different resolution than the second sensor. Yang does not disclose this limitation. However, Ackerman, directed to a structured light system, teaches with respect to claim 11:
each of the two first optical sensors are configured to track the object according to a first resolution (¶ 0027, high-speed, low-resolution depth extraction camera 106); and
the second optical sensor is configured to track the object according to a second resolution that is different than the first resolution (id., low-speed, high-resolution color camera 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to build the Yang system such that the IR navigation cameras 340 have a higher speed and lower resolution than the cameras 320, as taught by Ackerman, in order to collect the appropriate amount of data in the images needed to extract information. Ackerman ¶ 0006.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 10 recites a windowed region of interest specifically in the context of a stereoscopic pair of infrared sensors in a surgical navigation system. While optical sensors allowing for windowed regions of interest were known generally at the time of effective filing (e.g., US 6,839,452 B1; US 2009/0066782 A1), these general purpose sensors are not necessarily analogous prior art to the stereo infrared sensors in a surgical workflow application as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0304665 A1
US 2015/0077761 A1
US 2014/0336461 A1
US 2012/0056982 A1
US 2009/0066782 A1
US 2008/0262812 A1
CA 2598627 A1
US 6,839,452 B1
US 2002/0050924 A1
US 6006126 A
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2018/0092699 A1
US 2017/0312035 A1
US 2013/0060146 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights