OPTICAL CAMERA POSITIONING TOOL

Application No. 19/049,556

• Filed: Feb 10, 2025
• Priority: Mar 22, 2018 — provisional 62/646,431
  • Mar 11, 2019 — continuation of 11/490,969
  • Oct 12, 2022 — continuation of 12/251,180
• Examiner: BRUCE, FAROUK A
• Art Unit: 3797
• Tech Center: 3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
• Assignee: Medtech S A
• OA Round: 2 (Final)

Office Action

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 .

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in Applicant’s responses filed 06/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 21-41 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks on pages 8-9 that that determination of whether the camera is within a target volume location based on a position of the tracker within a field of view of the camera as required by claims 21, 28 and 35 is not a mental process and cannot be practically performed in the human mind because a machine-based image analysis of a tracker detected by the camera is required
However, Examiner contends that the such use of a machine-based image analysis merely comprises an automation of the mental step, which does not transform the mental step into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).
Applicant further asserts the claim as whole provides a specific technological improvement in the field to a user guessing an optimal location for the camera. However, Examiner notes that two-phase process described as the improvement to computer-assisted surgical systems appears to be conventional optimization process to place the camera a desired location that avoids obstruction of the field of view of the camera to the target. Such optimization is no more of an improvement than a user referring to the camera’s output images to determine obstructions and correcting such obstructions but manually adjusting the camera positions to the desired position that avoids the obstruction.
Examiner notes that claims include limitations directed to instructions for changing an angle of a camera and displaying a confirmation/indication that the camera is within the targe volume location and properly oriented. Hence the claim merely suffers from an absence of an implementation of such instructions. Put another way, there is not nexus between the provision of the instructions and a confirmation of an implementation of such instructions, where the nexus provides an actionable implementation of the instructions within the physical surgical field.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12 with respect to the rejections of claims 21, 28, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant remarks that prior art Dube (US 6434329 B1) fails to teach determine whether the camera is within a target volume location based on a detected position of the tracker within a field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as required by claims 21, 28, and 35.
In response, newly found prior art, Troy, et al., US 20140376768 A1, which teaches processes of a local positioning system including defining locations of a camera system with respect to trackers on robotic arms, has been applied in combination with the teachings of Dube to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 21-41 in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged.

Withdrawn Claim Objections
Pursuant of Applicant’s amendments filed 06/12/2026, the objections made to claims 27, 34, and 41 are hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Pursuant of Applicant’s amendments filed 06/12/2026, the rejection of claims 26, 33, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Claims 21-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: YES – Claim 21 recites a system and, therefore, is a device.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claim recites the following limitations: “determine whether the camera is within a target volume location based on a detected position of the tracker within a field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry coupled to memory, including instructions”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuitry coupled to memory, including instructions” language, the claim encompasses a user simply performing a visual observation of the surgical scene and determining that the camera is positioned at the target volume location. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: “a camera to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; a display device; and processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within a surgical field; in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location; output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented”. The camera, tracker, robotic surgical device comprise conventional surgical operation equipment/components and the display device and the processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, comprise generic computer components. The graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step are all recited at high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of tracking instruments using optical based sensors during a surgical procedure), and amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity during computer-assisted surgery procedures. The camera, tracker, robotic surgical device, display device and the processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions that perform the respective steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the routine and conventional steps identified above. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Here, the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities during a computer-assisted surgical procedure, in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) indicate that mere gathering and analyzing of information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.

Claim 22 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure”. The limitation fails to integrate the mental step identified above into a practical application as the limitation includes mere instructions to position the camera based on a specified criterion.

Claim 23 recites “wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure”, which does not negate the mental step identified above, as the specification of the parameters for generating the instructions does not demonstrate a practical application for which the instructions are generated.

Claim 24 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera”, which merely comprises further instructions for positioning the camera based on a specified criterion and hence fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.

Claim 25 recites “wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera”. The performance of precision analysis for the camera position comprises further calculations, which comprise mental steps to determine the camera position.

Claim 26 recites “wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision of the camera is maximized”. This limitation merely specifies conditions for determining the camera performance and hence fails to take the precision analysis out of the mental step category.

Claim 27 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based on for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure”. The limitations merely implement the abstract idea using a training data and hence comprise mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.

Step 1: Statutory Category: YES – Claim 28 recites method and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claim recites the following limitations: “determining whether the camera is within a target volume location based on a detected position of the tracker within a field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language, the claim encompasses a user simply performing a visual observation of the surgical scene and determining that the camera is positioned at the target volume location. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: “generating, using a processor, a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position a camera within a surgical field, wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument; in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically outputting an indication that the camera is within the target volume location; outputting a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and displaying a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented”.
The graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step are all recited at high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of tracking instruments using optical based sensors during a surgical procedure), and amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity during computer-assisted surgery procedures. The processor that performs the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step are all recited at high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of tracking instruments using optical based sensors during a surgical procedure), and amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity during computer-assisted surgery procedures, is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Here, the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities during a computer-assisted surgical procedure, in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) indicate that mere gathering and analyzing of information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.

Claim 29 recites “wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based receiving an indication of a selected surgical procedure”. The limitation fails to integrate the mental step identified above into a practical application as the limitation includes mere instructions to position the camera based on a specified criterion.

Claim 30 recites “wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure”, which does not negate the mental step identified above, as the specification of the parameters for generating the instructions does not demonstrate a practical application for which the instructions are generated.

Claim 31 recites “wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based on an optical precision of the camera”, which merely comprises further instructions for positioning the camera based on a specified criterion and hence fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.

Claim 32 recites “wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera”. The performance of precision analysis for the camera position comprises further calculations, which comprise mental steps to determine the camera position.

Claim 33 recites “wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision of the camera is maximized”. This limitation merely specifies conditions for determining the camera performance and hence fails to take the precision analysis out of the mental step category.

Claim 34 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure”. The limitations merely implement the abstract idea using a training data and hence comprise mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.

Step 1: Statutory Category: YES – Claim 35 recites At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions and, therefore, is a device.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claim recites the following limitations: “determine whether the camera is within a target volume location based on a detected position of the tracker within a field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a user simply performing a visual observation of the surgical scene and determining that the camera is positioned at the target volume location. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: “instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position a camera within a surgical field, wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument; in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location; output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented”. The camera, tracker, and surgical instrument comprise conventional surgical operation equipment/components and the display device and the processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, comprise generic computer components. The graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step are all recited at high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of tracking instruments using optical based sensors during a surgical procedure), and amount to mere insignificant extra-solution activity during computer-assisted surgery procedures. The camera, tracker, surgical instrument, the processing circuitry that performs the respective steps are also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the routine and conventional steps identified above. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processing circuitry). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Here, the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities during a computer-assisted surgical procedure, in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the processing circuitry is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747 court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) indicate that mere gathering and analyzing of information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the graphical user interface generation step, automatic indicator outputting step, the output of second instruction step and the confirmation displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.

Claim 36 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure”. The limitation fails to integrate the mental step identified above into a practical application as the limitation includes mere instructions to position the camera based on a specified criterion.

Claim 37 recites “wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure”, which does not negate the mental step identified above, as the specification of the parameters for generating the instructions does not demonstrate a practical application for which the instructions are generated.

Claim 38 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera”, which merely comprises further instructions for positioning the camera based on a specified criterion and hence fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.

Claim 39 recites “wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera”. The performance of precision analysis for the camera position comprises further calculations, which comprise mental steps to determine the camera position.

Claim 40 recites wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where optical precision of the camera is maximized. This limitation merely specifies conditions for determining the camera performance and hence fails to take the precision analysis out of the mental step category.

Claim 41 recites “instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based on for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure”. The limitations merely implement the abstract idea using a training data and hence comprise mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.

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.

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.

Claims 21-26, 28-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube, et al., US 6434329 B1 in view of Troy, et al., US 20140376768 A1.

Regarding claim 21, Dube teaches a system (the abstract discloses a “A controllable camera support including a pivoting arm adapted to be rotatably connected to a pivot point defining a first rotational axis”) comprising:
a camera (pair of cameras 20,22 of fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 62-65);
a display device (col. 7, lines 41-46 disclose that “The interface 102 also comprises a user interface (such as a computer screen, keyboard and mouse) which is coupled to the computer system for generating a position and/or speed command signals”); and processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry (col. 7, lines 38-41 discloses “The interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors. As previously discussed the sensors may be position sensor or speed sensors depending on design preference” and col. 4, lines 10-14 disclose the implementation of a software), cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within a surgical field (Col. 7, lines 34-48 disclose, with reference to FIG. 19, a simplified block diagram of the operation of the controllable camera support system and the camera system. A motion controller 100 receives the instructions from an interface 102. The interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors. As previously discussed the sensors may be position sensor or speed sensors depending on design preference. The interface 102 also comprises a user interface (such as a computer screen, keyboard and mouse) which is coupled to the computer system for generating a position and/or speed command signals. The program 104 running on the computer system and which permits the user to position the camera support as well as the camera angle and focus will be described later on, and col. 9, lines 30-31 states “A user interface is provided for sending commands to camera system through the controller”);
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location (col. 4, lines 35-41 states “The flexibility of the chosen system not only lies in the chosen mechanism but also in its position inside the operating room. An optimal system may be based on the combination of the chosen camera support and its strategic position to offer the most views on the target 32. It is advantageous to choose a camera support and a position for it that avoids the surgical lamps structures 26” and col. 4 lines 61-63 states that “The positioning of the camera support 42 under the lamp structure 26 is strategic because it avoids the first layer 28 completely”. The strategic positioning of the camera to offer views of the target based on a user’s choice teaches determining that the camera is at a target volume location as claimed. As noted above, col. 7, lines 38-40 disclose that the interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors, such measured rotational and radial positions indicating the strategic position of the camera);
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location (col. 7, lines 63-67 denote that By sampling sensor readings, the position of the camera support is continuously known. The controller may thus be able to modify the command signals in order to make corrections in real time of the position and/or speed of the system. col. 9, lines 38-48 state that “Referring to FIGS. 28 and 29, a graphical interface 150 shown in FIG. 28 corresponds to the physical system shown in FIG. 29. A first window 152 of the graphical interface 150 corresponds to a top view 154 shown in FIG. 29. A second window 156 of the graphical interface 150 corresponds to a side view 158 shown in FIG. 29. The top view 154 allows to locate objects in a plane (x and y), whereas the side view brings in height information (z). The tri-dimensional position of the target 32 may be translated in the aforementioned robotic parameters: l, Lv, 3, 4 and F”. Meaning that the determinations of the camera at the target volume location and indications of it through the graphical user interface is continuously performed. Figs. 28 and 29 have been reproduced below to show the markers indicative of the positions of the camera. Col. 10, lines 8-10 states that “Markers identified by "+" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) represent the position of the camera 46 and the target 32”);
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera (col. 10 lines 11-16 states that “The graphical interface 150 is adapted to receive the commands of the user to control the camera and its support. These commands may be sent directly with the help of a mouse, by moving the markers around the screen. The moving of the markers triggers an automatic calculation of the desired parameters by the system on the interface 150” and col. 10 lines 20-21 states that “When a user moves a marker in both the side view and top view, a command is sent to reposition the camera”. Meaning that the commands prompt the repositioning of the camera in an unobstructed view position by adjusting a camera angle and focus according col. 7, lines 46-49 in the surgical site or any object of interest in the room 10 (col. 3, lines 63-67). Col. 9, lines 6-9 also indicate that In use, a user observes the activities in the operating room 10 from a screen 144 connected to the camera. The user may control the position of the camera directly by means of the joystick, or indirectly by means of the PC 140.); and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented (col. 9, lines 66-67 and col. 10 lines 1-6 state that “The graphical interface 150 shown in FIG. 28 may be separated in two parts: the real parameters and the desired parameters. The real parameters are directly provided by the acquisition card and from the system, thereby providing a continuous real position of the pivoting arm 50 and camera 46. From the direct kinematics equations, these real parameters are converted in real graphical displays showing top and side views of the system”. Meaning that the markers are continuously depicted in the graphical user interface such that upon a repositioning of the camera, a depiction of the final, desired position is depicted in the graphical interface).

PNG
media_image1.png
494
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image2.png
624
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale

Dube fails to teach that the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; and that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). Troy discloses a local positioning system that employs a camera, such as a video camera 40 of figs. 2 and 3 and [0033], for tracking the target. Troy further describes the target is imbued with active target markers for tracking the target ([0040], disclosing that the automated absolute measurement process works by capturing a sequence of images with active lights (referred to hereinafter as "active target markers"), for example, computer-controlled light-emitting diodes (LEDs) attached to the surface of target object that is momentarily stationary. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the positions of three active target markers are indicated by points P.sub.1, P.sub.2 and P.sub.3), and also that the target comprises a robotic arm ([0066], disclosing that [0066] The techniques disclosed above can also be used to determine the position and orientation of a robotic arm relative to a workpiece (hereinafter "part"). As shown in FIG. 8, the local positioning system can be used to determine the relative offset between a part 90 and the base 84 of a robotic arm 86 that may carry an end effector 88 on a distal end thereof. The robot controller 80 controls the robotic arm 86 and operates the end effector 88 for performing machining operations on the part 90. Also see [0067]-[0068] for the tracking of the of the robotic arm).

PNG
media_image3.png
514
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale

As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; and that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

Regarding claim 22, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 21 above.
Dube further teaches instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure (col. 4, lines 64-65 state that “Referring to FIG. 3, a series of cones 34, which move as a function of time and of the type of surgery, represent some possible visual fields of the movable camera 46 toward the target 32”).

Regarding claim 23, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 22 above.
Dube further teaches wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure (col. 9 lines 49-55 states that “Referring to FIG. 30, there is shown an algorithm for controlling the camera system when the target becomes obstructed by an obstruction. The control system is adapted to move the camera to another predetermined position all the while focusing on the target as previously explained. Thus, the camera can be moved to another predetermined position where the obstruction does not obstruct the camera”).

Regarding claims 24, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 21 above.
Dube further teaches instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera (col. 9, lines 6-9 states “In use, a user observes the activities in the operating room 10 from a screen 144 connected to the camera. The user may control the position of the camera directly by means of the joystick, or indirectly by means of the PC 140”; col. 9 lines 12-13 states that “Commands are sent from the PC 140 to the command unit 132, which processes the received signals”; and col. 9, lines 18-22 states that “The command unit 132 powers the potentiometers and limit switches in the pivoting arm 50. The information received from the potentiometer, encoders and limit switches, and information received from the camera (tilt, azimuth, focal adjustment) is sent to the PC 140”).

Regarding claims 25, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 24 above.
Dube further teaches wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera (col. 6, lines 61-67 states that “Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, the camera support also includes another security component by providing limit switches 76 which is adapted to shut down power to the radial and rotational motors 62, 68. The limit switch 76 is adapted to shut down the motors when the pivoting arm reaches a maximum or minimum length when extended or retracted, or when it reaches a certain rotation position”. Figs. 13 and 14 show the movable camera 46 supported by the pivoting arm, for which a maximum or minimum length limits are implemented. Col. 8, lines 1-11 disclose, with reference to fig. 20, a feed forward controller (open loop). Known feed forward controllers are used with step motors. The controller sends a series of impulsions to the amplifier. The position and speed of the system are predetermined by the series of impulses sent to the motor. The precision and flexibility of the feed forward controller is low because there is an accumulation of errors during the process. From the desired position signal 116, the speed 118 and a control command 120 are calculated. Km represents the gain of the manipulator which provides the real position signal 121).

Regarding claim 26, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 25 above.
Dube further teaches wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision of the camera is maximized (col. 6, lines 61-67 states that “Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, the camera support also includes another security component by providing limit switches 76 which is adapted to shut down power to the radial and rotational motors 62, 68. The limit switch 76 is adapted to shut down the motors when the pivoting arm reaches a maximum or minimum length when extended or retracted, or when it reaches a certain rotation position”. Figs. 13 and 14 show the movable camera 46 supported by the pivoting arm, for which a maximum or minimum length limits are implemented. Col. 8, lines 1-11 disclose, with reference to fig. 20, a feed forward controller (open loop). Known feed forward controllers are used with step motors. The controller sends a series of impulsions to the amplifier. The position and speed of the system are predetermined by the series of impulses sent to the motor. The precision and flexibility of the feed forward controller is low because there is an accumulation of errors during the process. From the desired position signal 116, the speed 118 and a control command 120 are calculated. Km represents the gain of the manipulator which provides the real position signal 121).

Regarding claim 28, Dube teaches a method (col. 1, lines 48-50 discloses “Another object of the present invention is to provide an algorithm and method that will allow a distant observer to control the camera support and the camera”) comprising:
generating a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within a surgical field (Col. 7, lines 34-48 disclose, with reference to FIG. 19, a simplified block diagram of the operation of the controllable camera support system and the camera system. A motion controller 100 receives the instructions from an interface 102. The interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors. As previously discussed the sensors may be position sensor or speed sensors depending on design preference. The interface 102 also comprises a user interface (such as a computer screen, keyboard and mouse) which is coupled to the computer system for generating a position and/or speed command signals. The program 104 running on the computer system and which permits the user to position the camera support as well as the camera angle and focus will be described later on, and col. 9, lines 30-31 states “A user interface is provided for sending commands to camera system through the controller”);
determining whether the camera is within a target volume location (col. 4, lines 35-41 states “The flexibility of the chosen system not only lies in the chosen mechanism but also in its position inside the operating room. An optimal system may be based on the combination of the chosen camera support and its strategic position to offer the most views on the target 32. It is advantageous to choose a camera support and a position for it that avoids the surgical lamps structures 26” and col. 4 lines 61-63 states that “The positioning of the camera support 42 under the lamp structure 26 is strategic because it avoids the first layer 28 completely”. The strategic positioning of the camera to offer views of the target based on a user’s choice teaches determining that the camera is at a target volume location as claimed. As noted above, col. 7, lines 38-40 disclose that the interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors, such measured rotational and radial positions indicating the strategic position of the camera);
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically outputting an indication that the camera is within the target volume location (col. 7, lines 63-67 denote that By sampling sensor readings, the position of the camera support is continuously known. The controller may thus be able to modify the command signals in order to make corrections in real time of the position and/or speed of the system. col. 9, lines 38-48 state that “Referring to FIGS. 28 and 29, a graphical interface 150 shown in FIG. 28 corresponds to the physical system shown in FIG. 29. A first window 152 of the graphical interface 150 corresponds to a top view 154 shown in FIG. 29. A second window 156 of the graphical interface 150 corresponds to a side view 158 shown in FIG. 29. The top view 154 allows to locate objects in a plane (x and y), whereas the side view brings in height information (z). The tri-dimensional position of the target 32 may be translated in the aforementioned robotic parameters: l, Lv, 3, 4 and F”. Meaning that the determinations of the camera at the target volume location and indications of it through the graphical user interface is continuously performed. Figs. 28 and 29 have been reproduced below to show the markers indicative of the positions of the camera. Col. 10, lines 8-10 states that “Markers identified by "+" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) represent the position of the camera 46 and the target 32”);
outputting a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera (col. 10 lines 11-16 states that “The graphical interface 150 is adapted to receive the commands of the user to control the camera and its support. These commands may be sent directly with the help of a mouse, by moving the markers around the screen. The moving of the markers triggers an automatic calculation of the desired parameters by the system on the interface 150” and col. 10 lines 20-21 states that “When a user moves a marker in both the side view and top view, a command is sent to reposition the camera”. Meaning that the commands prompt the repositioning of the camera in an unobstructed view position by adjusting a camera angle and focus according col. 7, lines 46-49 in the surgical site or any object of interest in the room 10 (col. 3, lines 63-67). Col. 9, lines 6-9 also indicate that In use, a user observes the activities in the operating room 10 from a screen 144 connected to the camera. The user may control the position of the camera directly by means of the joystick, or indirectly by means of the PC 140.); and
displaying a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented (col. 9, lines 66-67 and col. 10 lines 1-6 state that “The graphical interface 150 shown in FIG. 28 may be separated in two parts: the real parameters and the desired parameters. The real parameters are directly provided by the acquisition card and from the system, thereby providing a continuous real position of the pivoting arm 50 and camera 46. From the direct kinematics equations, these real parameters are converted in real graphical displays showing top and side views of the system”. Meaning that the markers are continuously depicted in the graphical user interface such that upon a repositioning of the camera, a depiction of the final, desired position is depicted in the graphical interface).

PNG
media_image1.png
494
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image2.png
624
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale

Dube fails to teach that the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; and that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). Troy discloses a local positioning system that employs a camera, such as a video camera 40 of figs. 2 and 3 and [0033], for tracking the target. Troy further describes the target is imbued with active target markers for tracking the target ([0040], disclosing that the automated absolute measurement process works by capturing a sequence of images with active lights (referred to hereinafter as "active target markers"), for example, computer-controlled light-emitting diodes (LEDs) attached to the surface of target object that is momentarily stationary. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the positions of three active target markers are indicated by points P.sub.1, P.sub.2 and P.sub.3), and also that the target comprises a robotic arm ([0066], disclosing that [0066] The techniques disclosed above can also be used to determine the position and orientation of a robotic arm relative to a workpiece (hereinafter "part"). As shown in FIG. 8, the local positioning system can be used to determine the relative offset between a part 90 and the base 84 of a robotic arm 86 that may carry an end effector 88 on a distal end thereof. The robot controller 80 controls the robotic arm 86 and operates the end effector 88 for performing machining operations on the part 90. Also see [0067]-[0068] for the tracking of the of the robotic arm).

PNG
media_image3.png
514
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale

As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; and that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

Regarding claim 29, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 28 above.
Dube further teaches instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera is based on a selected surgical procedure (col. 4, lines 64-65 state that “Referring to FIG. 3, a series of cones 34, which move as a function of time and of the type of surgery, represent some possible visual fields of the movable camera 46 toward the target 32”).

Regarding claim 30, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 29 above.
Dube further teaches wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure (col. 9 lines 49-55 states that “Referring to FIG. 30, there is shown an algorithm for controlling the camera system when the target becomes obstructed by an obstruction. The control system is adapted to move the camera to another predetermined position all the while focusing on the target as previously explained. Thus, the camera can be moved to another predetermined position where the obstruction does not obstruct the camera”).

Regarding claim 31, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 28 above.
Dube further teaches instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera (col. 9, lines 6-9 states “In use, a user observes the activities in the operating room 10 from a screen 144 connected to the camera. The user may control the position of the camera directly by means of the joystick, or indirectly by means of the PC 140”; col. 9 lines 12-13 states that “Commands are sent from the PC 140 to the command unit 132, which processes the received signals”; and col. 9, lines 18-22 states that “The command unit 132 powers the potentiometers and limit switches in the pivoting arm 50. The information received from the potentiometer, encoders and limit switches, and information received from the camera (tilt, azimuth, focal adjustment) is sent to the PC 140”).

Regarding claims 32, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 31 above.
Dube further teaches wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera (col. 6, lines 61-67 states that “Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, the camera support also includes another security component by providing limit switches 76 which is adapted to shut down power to the radial and rotational motors 62, 68. The limit switch 76 is adapted to shut down the motors when the pivoting arm reaches a maximum or minimum length when extended or retracted, or when it reaches a certain rotation position”. Figs. 13 and 14 show the movable camera 46 supported by the pivoting arm, for which a maximum or minimum length limits are implemented. Col. 8, lines 1-11 disclose, with reference to fig. 20, a feed forward controller (open loop). Known feed forward controllers are used with step motors. The controller sends a series of impulsions to the amplifier. The position and speed of the system are predetermined by the series of impulses sent to the motor. The precision and flexibility of the feed forward controller is low because there is an accumulation of errors during the process. From the desired position signal 116, the speed 118 and a control command 120 are calculated. Km represents the gain of the manipulator which provides the real position signal 121).

Regarding claim 33, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 32 above.
Dube further teaches wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision of the camera is maximized (col. 6, lines 61-67 states that “Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, the camera support also includes another security component by providing limit switches 76 which is adapted to shut down power to the radial and rotational motors 62, 68. The limit switch 76 is adapted to shut down the motors when the pivoting arm reaches a maximum or minimum length when extended or retracted, or when it reaches a certain rotation position”. Figs. 13 and 14 show the movable camera 46 supported by the pivoting arm, for which a maximum or minimum length limits are implemented. Col. 8, lines 1-11 disclose, with reference to fig. 20, a feed forward controller (open loop). Known feed forward controllers are used with step motors. The controller sends a series of impulsions to the amplifier. The position and speed of the system are predetermined by the series of impulses sent to the motor. The precision and flexibility of the feed forward controller is low because there is an accumulation of errors during the process. From the desired position signal 116, the speed 118 and a control command 120 are calculated. Km represents the gain of the manipulator which provides the real position signal 121).

Regarding claim 35, Dube teaches at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, (col. 1, lines 48-50 discloses “Another object of the present invention is to provide an algorithm and method that will allow a distant observer to control the camera support and the camera”) cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within a surgical field (Col. 7, lines 34-48 disclose, with reference to FIG. 19, a simplified block diagram of the operation of the controllable camera support system and the camera system. A motion controller 100 receives the instructions from an interface 102. The interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors. As previously discussed the sensors may be position sensor or speed sensors depending on design preference. The interface 102 also comprises a user interface (such as a computer screen, keyboard and mouse) which is coupled to the computer system for generating a position and/or speed command signals. The program 104 running on the computer system and which permits the user to position the camera support as well as the camera angle and focus will be described later on, and col. 9, lines 30-31 states “A user interface is provided for sending commands to camera system through the controller”);
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location (col. 4, lines 35-41 states “The flexibility of the chosen system not only lies in the chosen mechanism but also in its position inside the operating room. An optimal system may be based on the combination of the chosen camera support and its strategic position to offer the most views on the target 32. It is advantageous to choose a camera support and a position for it that avoids the surgical lamps structures 26” and col. 4 lines 61-63 states that “The positioning of the camera support 42 under the lamp structure 26 is strategic because it avoids the first layer 28 completely”. The strategic positioning of the camera to offer views of the target based on a user’s choice teaches determining that the camera is at a target volume location as claimed. As noted above, col. 7, lines 38-40 disclose that the interface 102 includes a computer system (such as a PC) for receiving measured rotational and radial positions from the sensors, such measured rotational and radial positions indicating the strategic position of the camera);
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location (col. 7, lines 63-67 denote that By sampling sensor readings, the position of the camera support is continuously known. The controller may thus be able to modify the command signals in order to make corrections in real time of the position and/or speed of the system. col. 9, lines 38-48 state that “Referring to FIGS. 28 and 29, a graphical interface 150 shown in FIG. 28 corresponds to the physical system shown in FIG. 29. A first window 152 of the graphical interface 150 corresponds to a top view 154 shown in FIG. 29. A second window 156 of the graphical interface 150 corresponds to a side view 158 shown in FIG. 29. The top view 154 allows to locate objects in a plane (x and y), whereas the side view brings in height information (z). The tri-dimensional position of the target 32 may be translated in the aforementioned robotic parameters: l, Lv, 3, 4 and F”. Meaning that the determinations of the camera at the target volume location and indications of it through the graphical user interface is continuously performed. Figs. 28 and 29 have been reproduced below to show the markers indicative of the positions of the camera. Col. 10, lines 8-10 states that “Markers identified by "+" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) represent the position of the camera 46 and the target 32”);
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera (col. 10 lines 11-16 states that “The graphical interface 150 is adapted to receive the commands of the user to control the camera and its support. These commands may be sent directly with the help of a mouse, by moving the markers around the screen. The moving of the markers triggers an automatic calculation of the desired parameters by the system on the interface 150” and col. 10 lines 20-21 states that “When a user moves a marker in both the side view and top view, a command is sent to reposition the camera”. Meaning that the commands prompt the repositioning of the camera in an unobstructed view position by adjusting a camera angle and focus according col. 7, lines 46-49 in the surgical site or any object of interest in the room 10 (col. 3, lines 63-67). Col. 9, lines 6-9 also indicate that In use, a user observes the activities in the operating room 10 from a screen 144 connected to the camera. The user may control the position of the camera directly by means of the joystick, or indirectly by means of the PC 140.); and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented (col. 9, lines 66-67 and col. 10 lines 1-6 state that “The graphical interface 150 shown in FIG. 28 may be separated in two parts: the real parameters and the desired parameters. The real parameters are directly provided by the acquisition card and from the system, thereby providing a continuous real position of the pivoting arm 50 and camera 46. From the direct kinematics equations, these real parameters are converted in real graphical displays showing top and side views of the system”. Meaning that the markers are continuously depicted in the graphical user interface such that upon a repositioning of the camera, a depiction of the final, desired position is depicted in the graphical interface).

PNG
media_image1.png
494
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image2.png
624
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale

Dube fails to teach that the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; and that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). Troy discloses a local positioning system that employs a camera, such as a video camera 40 of figs. 2 and 3 and [0033], for tracking the target. Troy further describes the target is imbued with active target markers for tracking the target ([0040], disclosing that the automated absolute measurement process works by capturing a sequence of images with active lights (referred to hereinafter as "active target markers"), for example, computer-controlled light-emitting diodes (LEDs) attached to the surface of target object that is momentarily stationary. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the positions of three active target markers are indicated by points P.sub.1, P.sub.2 and P.sub.3), and also that the target comprises a robotic arm ([0066], disclosing that [0066] The techniques disclosed above can also be used to determine the position and orientation of a robotic arm relative to a workpiece (hereinafter "part"). As shown in FIG. 8, the local positioning system can be used to determine the relative offset between a part 90 and the base 84 of a robotic arm 86 that may carry an end effector 88 on a distal end thereof. The robot controller 80 controls the robotic arm 86 and operates the end effector 88 for performing machining operations on the part 90. Also see [0067]-[0068] for the tracking of the of the robotic arm).

PNG
media_image3.png
514
716
media_image3.png
Greyscale

As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; and that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

Regarding claim 36, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Dube further teaches instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure (col. 4, lines 64-65 state that “Referring to FIG. 3, a series of cones 34, which move as a function of time and of the type of surgery, represent some possible visual fields of the movable camera 46 toward the target 32”).

Regarding claim 37, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 36 above.
Dube further teaches wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure (col. 9 lines 49-55 states that “Referring to FIG. 30, there is shown an algorithm for controlling the camera system when the target becomes obstructed by an obstruction. The control system is adapted to move the camera to another predetermined position all the while focusing on the target as previously explained. Thus, the camera can be moved to another predetermined position where the obstruction does not obstruct the camera”).

Regarding claim 38, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Dube further teaches instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera (col. 9, lines 6-9 states “In use, a user observes the activities in the operating room 10 from a screen 144 connected to the camera. The user may control the position of the camera directly by means of the joystick, or indirectly by means of the PC 140”; col. 9 lines 12-13 states that “Commands are sent from the PC 140 to the command unit 132, which processes the received signals”; and col. 9, lines 18-22 states that “The command unit 132 powers the potentiometers and limit switches in the pivoting arm 50. The information received from the potentiometer, encoders and limit switches, and information received from the camera (tilt, azimuth, focal adjustment) is sent to the PC 140”).

Regarding claim 39, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 38 above.
Dube further teaches wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera (col. 6, lines 61-67 states that “Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, the camera support also includes another security component by providing limit switches 76 which is adapted to shut down power to the radial and rotational motors 62, 68. The limit switch 76 is adapted to shut down the motors when the pivoting arm reaches a maximum or minimum length when extended or retracted, or when it reaches a certain rotation position”. Figs. 13 and 14 show the movable camera 46 supported by the pivoting arm, for which a maximum or minimum length limits are implemented. Col. 8, lines 1-11 disclose, with reference to fig. 20, a feed forward controller (open loop). Known feed forward controllers are used with step motors. The controller sends a series of impulsions to the amplifier. The position and speed of the system are predetermined by the series of impulses sent to the motor. The precision and flexibility of the feed forward controller is low because there is an accumulation of errors during the process. From the desired position signal 116, the speed 118 and a control command 120 are calculated. Km represents the gain of the manipulator which provides the real position signal 121).

Regarding claim 40, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 39 above.
Dube further teaches wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision of the camera is maximized (col. 6, lines 61-67 states that “Referring to FIGS. 13 and 14, the camera support also includes another security component by providing limit switches 76 which is adapted to shut down power to the radial and rotational motors 62, 68. The limit switch 76 is adapted to shut down the motors when the pivoting arm reaches a maximum or minimum length when extended or retracted, or when it reaches a certain rotation position”. Figs. 13 and 14 show the movable camera 46 supported by the pivoting arm, for which a maximum or minimum length limits are implemented. Col. 8, lines 1-11 disclose, with reference to fig. 20, a feed forward controller (open loop). Known feed forward controllers are used with step motors. The controller sends a series of impulsions to the amplifier. The position and speed of the system are predetermined by the series of impulses sent to the motor. The precision and flexibility of the feed forward controller is low because there is an accumulation of errors during the process. From the desired position signal 116, the speed 118 and a control command 120 are calculated. Km represents the gain of the manipulator which provides the real position signal 121).

Claims 27, 34, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube, et al., US 6434329 B1 in view of Troy, et al., US 20140376768 A1, as applied to claims 21, 28 and 35, respectively above, and further in view of Zisimopoulos, et al., US 20180357514 A1.

Regarding claim 27, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 21 above.
Dube in view of Troy fails to teach instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Zisimopoulos teaches a computer-assisted surgical (CAS) system comprising a surgical simulation for training detection and classification neural networks implemented cataract surgery ([0024]). [0073] further states that “models were trained on a simulated dataset acquired from a commercially available surgical simulator and adapted such that it could be used on real cataract images (2017 MICCAI CATARACTS challenge, https://cataracts.grand-challenge.org/). The simulator was used to generate data with variability in camera pose, lighting or instrument motion, to train machine learning models and then directly apply them to detect tools in real cataract videos. Generally, results of the example shoed that there is potential for developing this idea, with the pix2pix technique demonstrating that detecting real instruments using models trained on synthetic data is feasible”, hence teaching instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube as modified by Troy to include instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure, as taught by Zisimopoulos, to improve the accuracy of detection of the features of interest within the surgical scene ([0025]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

Regarding claim 34, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claims 28, above.
Dube in view of Troy fails to teach instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Zisimopoulos teaches a computer-assisted surgical (CAS) system comprising a surgical simulation for training detection and classification neural networks implemented cataract surgery ([0024]). [0073] further states that “models were trained on a simulated dataset acquired from a commercially available surgical simulator and adapted such that it could be used on real cataract images (2017 MICCAI CATARACTS challenge, https://cataracts.grand-challenge.org/). The simulator was used to generate data with variability in camera pose, lighting or instrument motion, to train machine learning models and then directly apply them to detect tools in real cataract videos. Generally, results of the example shoed that there is potential for developing this idea, with the pix2pix technique demonstrating that detecting real instruments using models trained on synthetic data is feasible”, hence teaching instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube as modified by Troy to include instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure, as taught by Zisimopoulos, to improve the accuracy of detection of the features of interest within the surgical scene ([0025]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

Regarding claim 41, Dube in view of Troy teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Dube in view of Troy fails to teach instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Zisimopoulos teaches a computer-assisted surgical (CAS) system comprising a surgical simulation for training detection and classification neural networks implemented cataract surgery ([0024]). [0073] further states that “models were trained on a simulated dataset acquired from a commercially available surgical simulator and adapted such that it could be used on real cataract images (2017 MICCAI CATARACTS challenge, https://cataracts.grand-challenge.org/). The simulator was used to generate data with variability in camera pose, lighting or instrument motion, to train machine learning models and then directly apply them to detect tools in real cataract videos. Generally, results of the example shoed that there is potential for developing this idea, with the pix2pix technique demonstrating that detecting real instruments using models trained on synthetic data is feasible”, hence teaching instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube as modified by Troy to include instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on training data for the target volume location, wherein the training data is generated based for a specific surgical procedure by optimizing location through testing a plurality of locations during a surgical procedure, as taught by Zisimopoulos, to improve the accuracy of detection of the features of interest within the surgical scene ([0025]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 24, 28, 31, 35, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 10, 17, 19, and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 11490969 B2, in view of Troy, et al., US 20140376768 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in the claims mentioned above of the instant application are also recited in the claims mentioned above of the U.S. Patent.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11490969 B2
21. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a camera to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device;
a display device; and
processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within a surgical field;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
1. A system comprising:
a camera to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device;
a display device; and
processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to reposition the camera;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location;
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align a laser of the camera to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
optionally confirm that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
U.S. Patent No. 11490969 B2 fails to teach that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

24. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 21, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing instructions further cause the processing circuitry to determine the target volume location based on optical precision of the camera and one or more spatial constraints in an operating room containing the robotic surgical device and the camera.
28. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
generating, using a processor, a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position a camera within a surgical field, wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument;
determining whether the camera is within a target volume location
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically outputting an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;

outputting a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
displaying a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
10. A method comprising:
detecting, using a camera, a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device;
generating, using a processor, a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to reposition the camera;
determining whether the camera is within a target volume location;
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically outputting an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;

outputting a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align a laser of the camera to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
optionally confirming that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
U.S. Patent No. 11490969 B2 fails to teach that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).
31. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 28, wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based on an optical precision of the camera.
17. The method of claim 10, further comprising determining the target volume location based on optical precision of the camera and one or more spatial constraints in an operating room containing the robotic surgical device and the camera.
35. (Currently Amended) At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: generate a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position a camera within a surgical field, wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument;

determine whether the camera is within a target volume location
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
19. At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
detect, using information received from a camera, a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device; generate a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to reposition the camera;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location;
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align a laser of the camera to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
optionally confirm that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
U.S. Patent No. 11490969 B2 fails to teach that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

38. (Previously Presented) The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 35, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera.
26. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions further cause the processing circuitry to determine the target volume location based on optical precision of the camera and one or more spatial constraints in an operating room containing the robotic surgical device and the camera.

Claims 21-26, 28-33, and 35-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 U.S. Patent No. 12251180 B2 in view of Troy, et al., US 20140376768 A1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in the claims mentioned above of the instant application are also recited in the claims mentioned above of the U.S. Patent.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12251180 B2
21. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a camera to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device;
a display device; and
processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within a surgical field;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
1. A system comprising:
a camera to detect a tracker coupled to a robotic surgical device;
a display device; and
processing circuitry coupled to memory, including processing instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on the display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within the surgical field;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location;
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align a laser of the camera to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
U.S. Patent No. 12251180 B2 fails to teach that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

22. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 21, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure.
23. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 22, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure.
24. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 21, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera.
4. The system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera.
25. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 24, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera.
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera.
26. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 25, wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision the camera is maximized.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance for optimal performance of the camera.
28. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
generating, using a processor, a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position a camera within a surgical field,
wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument;
determining whether the camera is within a target volume location
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically outputting an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
outputting a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and

displaying a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
8. A method comprising: generating, using a processor, a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within the surgical field,

wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument; determining whether the camera is within a target volume location;
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically outputting an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
outputting a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align a laser associated with the camera to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
displaying a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
U.S. Patent No. 12251180 B2 fails to teach that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

29. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 28, wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based receiving an indication of a selected surgical procedure.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based receiving an indication of a selected surgical procedure.

30. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 29, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure.

31. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 28, wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based on an optical precision of the camera.
11. The method of claim 8, wherein generating the first set of instructions to position the camera is based on an optical precision of the camera.

32. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 31, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera.

33. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 32, wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where the optical precision of the camera is maximized.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance for optimal performance of the camera.

35. (Currently Amended) At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position a camera within a surgical field, wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align the camera in reference to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
15. At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium, including instructions, which when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a graphical user interface for presentation on a display device, the graphical user interface including a first set of instructions to position the camera within the surgical field, wherein the camera is configured to detect a tracker coupled to a surgical instrument;
determine whether the camera is within a target volume location;
in response to determining that the camera is within the target volume location, automatically output an indication that the camera is within the target volume location;
output a second set of instructions for display on the graphical user interface to align a laser of the camera to the tracker by changing an angle of the camera; and
display a confirmation that the camera is within the target volume location and properly oriented.
U.S. Patent No. 12251180 B2 fails to teach that determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Troy teaches an automated process that uses a local positioning system to acquire location (i.e., position and orientation) data for one or more movable target objects. In cases where the target objects have the capability to move under computer control, this automated process can use the measured location data to control the position and orientation of such target objects (see abstract). As seen in reproduced figs. 2 and 3 below, [0036] describes processes of the local positioning system describing, among other steps, that the three-dimensional localization software may be of a type that uses multiple calibration points 14 on the target object 30 to define the location (position and orientation) of video camera 40 relative to target object 30. The calibration points 14 may be visible features of known position in the local coordinate system of the target object 30 as determined from a three-dimensional database of feature positions (e.g., a CAD model) or other measurement technique. The points correspond to the markers according to [0040]).

PNG
media_image4.png
452
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale

PNG
media_image5.png
448
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Dube wherein the determining the camera location is based on a detected position of the tracker within the field of view of the camera in reference to a virtual coordinate system, as taught by Troy, as such modification would allow the accurate determinations of the target of interest [0003], and reduce the number of components required for making such measurements, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Dube strives to provide solutions for accurate positioning of a robotic arm at a target location (col. 7, lines 18-29).

36. (Previously Presented) The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 35, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure.
16. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on a selected surgical procedure.
37. (Previously Presented) The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure.
17. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes optimizing camera position and orientation based on minimizing line-of-sight obstructions anticipated during the selected surgical procedure.

38. (Previously Presented) The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 35, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera.
18. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 15, further comprising instructions that cause the processing circuitry to generate the first set of instructions to position the camera based on an optical precision of the camera.

39. (Previously Presented) The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 38, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera.

19. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the generating the first set of instructions to position the camera includes performing a precision analysis to determine the optical precision of the camera.

40. (Currently Amended) The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 39, wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance where optical precision of the camera is maximized.
20. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein performing the precision analysis includes determining a minimum and maximum distance for optimal performance of the camera.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20150297177 A1 teaches determination of a desired position of a camera for tracking a marker attached to a probe.
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 Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at [phone]. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3797

Prosecution Timeline

• Feb 10, 2025: Application Filed
• Mar 12, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §103, §112
• Jun 12, 2026: Response Filed
• Aug 24, 2026: Final Rejection mailed — §101, §103, §112 (current)