DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “...a message that the bone may be removed from the patient” in line 6-7 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “may be” and if the limitation after the phrase “may be” is required by the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the claim limitation “...a message that the bone may be removed from the patient” in line 6 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “may be” and if the limitation after the phrase “may be” is required by the claim.
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 1-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, 21-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding claim 1, the independent claims is directed to a method of mixed reality visualization. The claim limitations of “identifying...based on the ultrasound image data, a soft tissue attachment point, wherein the soft tissue attachment point is a point on the non-viewable portion of the bone at which a soft tissue structure is attached to the bone” and “...display a virtual indicator superimposed on a viewable portion of the bone at allocation corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point” are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen paper. Therefore, the cited limitations above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “the processing system comprising one or more processors”). Other than the processing system (which is represented simply as a part of a basic computer system), nothing identified in the claim is precluded from being practically performed in the mind, or with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures additionally established that if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category of abstract ideas unless the claim cannot be practically performed in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a “practical application” as defined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis documented in Federal Register 84(4), issued on 07 January 2019 and since documented in MPEP § 2106. While the claim recites that a “one or more processor” that performs the limitations encompassing mental processes, this simply represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. ____ (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. See also subsection I of the cited section and MPEP § 2106.05(f) which indicates that instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or that “using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” as interpreted by the courts.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of a generic computer components (i.e., “the processing system comprising one or more processors”)to execute the abstract ideas and does not add significantly more that the abstract idea because since the one or more processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a Mixed Reality (MR) visualization device” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because a MR visualization device is well known in the art.
Furthermore, the claim limitation of “obtaining...ultrasound imaging data representing anon-viewable portion of a bone of a patient” is directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 1 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 2-8, 14-15, the clams further recites limitation (i.e., the generating steps, determining steps) which are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen paper. Furthermore, the claims also recites claim limitation (i.e., the obtaining steps) which are directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 10-12, claims 10-11 recites additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea. However, claims 10-12 are rejected as they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the independent claims is directed to a computing system for mixed reality visualization. The claim limitations of “identify...based on the ultrasound image data, a soft tissue attachment point, wherein the soft tissue attachment point is a point on the non-viewable portion of the bone at which a soft tissue structure is attached to the bone” and “...display a virtual indicator superimposed on a viewable portion of the bone at allocation corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point” are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen paper. Therefore, the cited limitations above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “the processing system comprising one or more processors” and “a storage system”). Other than the processing system (which is represented simply as a part of a basic computer system), nothing identified in the claim is precluded from being practically performed in the mind, or with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures additionally established that if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category of abstract ideas unless the claim cannot be practically performed in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a “practical application” as defined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis documented in Federal Register 84(4), issued on 07 January 2019 and since documented in MPEP § 2106. While the claim recites that a “one or more processor” that performs the limitations encompassing mental processes, this simply represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. ____ (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. See also subsection I of the cited section and MPEP § 2106.05(f) which indicates that instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or that “using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” as interpreted by the courts.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of a generic computer components (“the processing system comprising one or more processors” and “storage system”) to execute the abstract ideas and does not add significantly more that the abstract idea because since the one or more processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a Mixed Reality (MR) visualization device” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because a MR visualization device is well known in the art.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 16 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 17, 19, 21-23, the clams further recites limitation (i.e., the generating steps, determining steps) which are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen paper. Furthermore, the claims also recite claim limitation (i.e., the obtaining steps) which are directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 27, the independent claims is directed to a computer-readable storage for mixed reality visualization. The claim limitations of “identify...based on the ultrasound image data, a soft tissue attachment point, wherein the soft tissue attachment point is a point on the non-viewable portion of the bone at which a soft tissue structure is attached to the bone” and “...display a virtual indicator superimposed on a viewable portion of the bone at allocation corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point” are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen paper. Therefore, the cited limitations above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “the processing system”). Other than the processing system (which is represented simply as a part of a basic computer system), nothing identified in the claim is precluded from being practically performed in the mind, or with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures additionally established that if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category of abstract ideas unless the claim cannot be practically performed in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a “practical application” as defined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis documented in Federal Register 84(4), issued on 07 January 2019 and since documented in MPEP § 2106. While the claim recites that a “one or more processor” that performs the limitations encompassing mental processes, this simply represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. ____ (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. See also subsection I of the cited section and MPEP § 2106.05(f) which indicates that instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or that “using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea” are not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application” as interpreted by the courts.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of a generic computer components (“the processing system”) to execute the abstract ideas and does not add significantly more that the abstract idea because since the one or more processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The additional elements of “a Mixed Reality (MR) visualization device” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because a MR visualization device is well known in the art.
Furthermore, the claim limitation of “obtaining ultrasound imaging data representing anon-viewable portion of a bone of a patient” is directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 27 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 15-16, 19, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by May et al. (US 2021/0361358; hereinafter May).
Regarding claim 1, May discloses an augmented reality supported knee surgery. May shows a method comprising: obtaining, by a processing system comprising one or more processors implemented in circuitry (see 602 in fig. 6 and 902 in fig. 9), ultrasound imaging data representing a non-viewable portion of a bone of a patient (see par. [0014] and [0036]); identifying, by the processing system, based on the ultrasound imaging data, a soft tissue attachment point (see par. [0014], [0036]), wherein the soft tissue attachment point (see 306, 308, 310 and 312 in fig. 3) is a point on the non-viewable portion of the bone at which a soft tissue structure is attached to the bone (see par. [0033], [0035]); and causing, by the processing system, a Mixed Reality (MR) visualization device to display a virtual indicator superimposed on a viewable portion of the bone at a location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point (see fig. 3 and par. [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, May shows wherein the soft tissue structure is one of: a tendon, a ligament, a muscle, cartilage, scar tissue, tough capsule tissue, or a blood vessel (see par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, May shows wherein the non- viewable portion of the bone and the viewable portion of the bone are opposite sides of the bone (see par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, May shows wherein the bone is a tibia (see par. [0030]), the non-viewable portion of the bone is an area on a posterior side of the tibia (see fig. 3), and the viewable portion of the bone is an area on an anterior side of the tibia at which an incision to access the tibia has been made (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, May shows wherein the non-viewable portion of the bone is an area on a first side of the bone (see par. [0033], fig. 3), the viewable portion of the bone is an area on a second side of the bone opposite the first side of the bone at which an incision to access the bone has been made (see par. [0033], fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, May shows wherein the virtual indicator is a first virtual indicator and the method further comprises causing, by the processing system, the MR visualization device to display a second virtual indicator superimposed on the viewable portion of the bone at a location corresponding to target bone tissue on the non-viewable portion of the bone or another bone of the patient (see par. [0033], [0035] fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 16, May discloses an augmented reality supported knee surgery. May shows a computing system (see fig. 6, 9 and par. [0067]) comprising: a storage system configured (see 604 in fig. 6) to store ultrasound imaging data representing a non-viewable portion of a bone of a patient (see par. [0014] and [0036]); and a processing system comprising one or more processors implemented in processing circuitry (see 602 in fig. 6 and 902 in fig. 9), the processing system configured to identify, based on the ultrasound imaging data, a soft tissue attachment point (see par. [0014], [0036]), wherein the soft tissue attachment point (see 306, 308, 310 and 312 in fig. 3) is a point on the non-viewable portion of the bone at which a soft tissue structure is attached to the bone (see par. [0033], [0035]); and cause, a Mixed Reality (MR) visualization device to display a virtual indicator superimposed on a viewable portion of the bone at a location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point (see fig. 3 and par. [0033], [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, May shows wherein the non- viewable portion of the bone and the viewable portion of the bone are opposite sides of the bone (see par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 21, May shows wherein the non-viewable portion of the bone is an area on a first side of the bone, the viewable portion of the bone is an area on a second side of the bone opposite the first side of the bone at which an incision to access the bone has been made (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, May discloses an augmented reality supported knee surgery. May shows one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions stored (see par. [0068]) thereon that, when executed, cause a processing system to obtain ultrasound imaging data representing a non-viewable portion of a bone of a patient (see par. [0014] and [0036]); identify, based on the ultrasound imaging data, a soft tissue attachment point (see par. [0014], [0036]), wherein the soft tissue attachment point see 306, 308, 310 and 312 in fig. 3) is a point on the non-viewable portion of the bone at which a soft tissue structure is attached to the bone (see par. [0033], [0035]); and cause a Mixed Reality (MR) visualization device to display a virtual indicator superimposed on a viewable portion of the bone at a location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point (see fig. 3 and par. [0033], [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2021/0361358; hereinafter May), in view of Poltaretskyi et al. (WO 2021/127025; hereinafter Poltaretskyi).
Regarding claim 2, May discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore, May shows an ultrasound-based 3-dimensional (3D) model, and the method further comprises: obtaining a 3D reference bone model of the bone (see par. [0060], fig. 3); wherein the ultrasound imaging data includes the ultrasound-based 3D model (see fig 3; par. [0036], [0051]), but May fails to explicitly state identifying the soft tissue attachment point comprises determining coordinates of the soft tissue attachment point in a virtual coordinate system of 3D model; generating first registration data that registers the virtual coordinate system of the ultrasound-based 3D model with a virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; generating second registration data that registers a coordinate system of the MR visualization device with the virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; and determining, based on the first registration data and the second registration data, a location in the coordinate system of the MR visualization device of the location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point.
Poltaretskyi discloses a surgical guidance for surgical tools. Poltaretskyi teaches identifying the soft tissue attachment point comprises determining coordinates of the soft tissue attachment point in a virtual coordinate system of 3D model (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118]); generating first registration data that registers the virtual coordinate system of the ultrasound-based 3D model with a virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118], [0124], [0126], [0138], [0169]); generating second registration data that registers a coordinate system of the MR visualization device with the virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118], [0124], [0126], [0138], [0169]); and determining, based on the first registration data and the second registration data, a location in the coordinate system of the MR visualization device of the location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118], [0124], [0126], [0138], [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of identifying the soft tissue attachment point comprises determining coordinates of the soft tissue attachment point in a virtual coordinate system of 3D model; generating first registration data that registers the virtual coordinate system of the ultrasound-based 3D model with a virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; generating second registration data that registers a coordinate system of the MR visualization device with the virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; and determining, based on the first registration data and the second registration data, a location in the coordinate system of the MR visualization device of the location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point in the invention of May, as taught by Poltaretskyi, to be able to accurately and properly position and insertion of the surgical tool and for a success surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 17, May discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore, May shows an ultrasound-based 3-dimensional (3D) model, and the method further comprises: obtaining a 3D reference bone model of the bone (see par. [0060], fig. 3); wherein the ultrasound imaging data includes the ultrasound-based 3D model (see fig 3; par. [0036], [0051]), but May fails to explicitly state determining coordinates of the soft tissue attachment point in a virtual coordinate system of 3D model; generating first registration data that registers the virtual coordinate system of the ultrasound-based 3D model with a virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; generating second registration data that registers a coordinate system of the MR visualization device with the virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; and determining, based on the first registration data and the second registration data, a location in the coordinate system of the MR visualization device of the location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point.
Poltaretskyi discloses a surgical guidance for surgical tools. Poltaretskyi teaches determining coordinates of the soft tissue attachment point in a virtual coordinate system of 3D model (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118]); generating first registration data that registers the virtual coordinate system of the ultrasound-based 3D model with a virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118], [0124], [0126], [0138], [0169]); generating second registration data that registers a coordinate system of the MR visualization device with the virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118], [0124], [0126], [0138], [0169]); and determining, based on the first registration data and the second registration data, a location in the coordinate system of the MR visualization device of the location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point (see par. [0058], [0059], [0075], [0086], [0100], [0115], [0118], [0124], [0126], [0138], [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining coordinates of the soft tissue attachment point in a virtual coordinate system of 3D model; generating first registration data that registers the virtual coordinate system of the ultrasound-based 3D model with a virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; generating second registration data that registers a coordinate system of the MR visualization device with the virtual coordinate system of the 3D reference bone model; and determining, based on the first registration data and the second registration data, a location in the coordinate system of the MR visualization device of the location corresponding to the soft tissue attachment point in the invention of May, as taught by Poltaretskyi, to be able to accurately and properly position and insertion of the surgical tool and for a success surgical procedure.
Claims 7-8, 14 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2021/0361358; hereinafter May), in view of Hampp et al. (US 2020/0205898; hereinafter Hampp).
Regarding claim 7, May discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore, May shows wherein: the ultrasound imaging data is first ultrasound imaging data (see par. [0036], [0051]), but May fails to explicitly state second ultrasound imaging data representing non-viewable portion of the bone at a later time than the first ultrasound imaging data; determining, by the processing system, based on the second ultrasound imaging data, whether the soft tissue attachment point continues to exist; and based on the soft tissue attachment point not continuing to exist.
Hampp discloses a system and method for surgical planning using soft tissue attachment points. Hampp teaches second ultrasound imaging data representing non-viewable portion of the bone at a later time than the first ultrasound imaging data (see par. [0058]); determining, by the processing system, based on the second ultrasound imaging data, whether the soft tissue attachment point continues to exist (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]); and based on the soft tissue attachment point not continuing to exist (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of second ultrasound imaging data representing non-viewable portion of the bone at a later time than the first ultrasound imaging data; determining, by the processing system, based on the second ultrasound imaging data, whether the soft tissue attachment point continues to exist; and based on the soft tissue attachment point not continuing to exist in the invention of May, as taught by Hampp, to provide a more accurate surgical plan by accounting soft tissue attachment which would benefit of placement of surgical implant. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Hampp with the invention of May would provide the MR visualization device not to display the virtual indicator superimposed on the viewable portion of the bone.
Regarding claim 8, May and Hampp disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection, furthermore as best understood of the indefinite language, May teaches the MR visualization device to present message (see fig. 2; par. [0024]-[0025]) and Hampp teaches further comprising: determining, by the processing system, based on the second ultrasound imaging data, that there are no remaining soft tissue attachment points at which soft tissue structures are attached to the bone (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]); and based on there being no remaining soft tissue attachment points, causing, by the processing system, the MR visualization device to a present a message (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]). The examiner notes that the claim limitation that the bone may be removed from the patient is not positively recited and does not require because of the indefinite phrase “may be”.
Regarding claim 14, May discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein identifying the soft tissue attachment point comprises applying, by the processing system, a machine learning model that identifies the soft tissue attachment point based on imaging data.
Hampp discloses a system and methods for surgical planning using soft tissue attachment points. Hampp teaches a machine learning model that identifies the soft tissue attachment point based on imaging data (see par. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a machine learning model that identifies the soft tissue attachment point based on imaging data in the invention of May, as taught by Hampp, to provide a more accurate surgical plan by accounting soft tissue attachment using machine learning which would benefit of placement of surgical implant.
Regarding claim 22, May discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore, May shows wherein: the ultrasound imaging data is first ultrasound imaging data (see par. [0036], [0051]), but May fails to explicitly state second ultrasound imaging data representing non-viewable portion of the bone at a later time than the first ultrasound imaging data; determine based on the second ultrasound imaging data, whether the soft tissue attachment point continues to exist; and based on the soft tissue attachment point not continuing to exist.
Hampp discloses a system and method for surgical planning using soft tissue attachment points. Hampp teaches second ultrasound imaging data representing non-viewable portion of the bone at a later time than the first ultrasound imaging data (see par. [0058]); determine based on the second ultrasound imaging data, whether the soft tissue attachment point continues to exist (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]); and based on the soft tissue attachment point not continuing to exist (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of second ultrasound imaging data representing non-viewable portion of the bone at a later time than the first ultrasound imaging data; determine based on the second ultrasound imaging data, whether the soft tissue attachment point continues to exist; and based on the soft tissue attachment point not continuing to exist in the invention of May, as taught by Hampp, to provide a more accurate surgical plan by accounting soft tissue attachment which would benefit of placement of surgical implant. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Hampp with the invention of May would provide the MR visualization device not to display the virtual indicator superimposed on the viewable portion of the bone.
Regarding claim 23, May and Hampp disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection, furthermore as best understood of the indefinite language, May teaches the MR visualization device to present message (see fig. 2; par. [0024]-[0025]) and Hampp teaches further comprising: determining, by the processing system, based on the second ultrasound imaging data, that there are no remaining soft tissue attachment points at which soft tissue structures are attached to the bone (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]); and based on there being no remaining soft tissue attachment points, causing, by the processing system, the MR visualization device to a present a message (see par. [0003], [0062], [0063], [0065], [0066], [0071], [0077]). The examiner notes that the claim limitation that the bone may be removed from the patient is not positively recited and does not requires because of the indefinite phrase “may be”.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (US 2021/0361358; hereinafter May), in view of Mark (US 2010/0249817).
Regarding claim 10, May discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102 rejection above, furthermore, May shows the MR visualization device to present instructions to position a detachment tool at an initial location (see fig. 2; par. [0024]-[0025]), and, advance a resection surface of the detachment tool to detach the soft tissue structure from the bone (see par. [0030], [0044]), But May fails to explicitly state that the detachment tool comprises a motor configured such that, while the detachment tool is at the initial location, and be able to advance the resection surface without manual movement of the detachment tool.
Mark discloses a positioning system for tissue removal device. Mark teaches a motor (see par. [0047], [0049]) configured such that, while the tool is at the initial location, and be able to advance the resection surface without manual movement of the tool (see par. [0047], [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a motor configured such that, while the tool is at the initial location, and be able to advance the resection surface without manual movement of the tool in invention of May, as taught by Mark, to provide a more accurate tissue resection tool by having the motor to automatically move the tool.
Regarding claim 11, May and Mark disclose the invention substantially as described the invention in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Mark teaches that the tool comprises a sensor that generates a signal based on resistance to advancement of the resection surface (see abstract; par. [0051], [0085], [0087]), and the tool is configured to control advancement of the resection surface based on the resistance to the advancement of the resection surface (see abstract; par. [0051], [0085], [0087]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the tool comprises a sensor that generates a signal based on resistance to advancement of the resection surface and the tool is configured to control advancement of the resection surface based on the resistance to the advancement of the resection surface in invention of May, as taught by Mark, to provide a more accurate tissue resection tool by having the sensor as a safety net to avoid damaging healthy tissue.
Regarding claim 12, May and Mark disclose the invention substantially as described the invention in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, further comprising causing, by the processing system, the MR visualization device to present information related to a position of the resection surface after the detachment tool is at the initial location (see par. [0023], [0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights