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 Amendment
Applicant’s response filed 07/08/2026 has been entered. Currently claims 1-3, 6-8, 21-23, 26-28, and 41-43 are pending.
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 1-3, 6-8, 21-23, 26-28, and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- The claim recites a method for assessing surgical instrument progress and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with the pose data; responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument projected upon the centerline,”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the limitation “constructing at least a portion of a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the patient interior; projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model;”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim recites the following addition elements “A computer-implemented method for assessing progress of a surgical instrument within a patient interior, the method comprising: causing feedback to be displayed on a display device”. These steps merely amount to pre-solution insignificant activities, as the feedback displayed is simply data output to a display, and does not necessarily have to be related to the speed threshold response.
This additional element, taken individually or in combination, merely amounts to insignificant extra solution activities because they pertain to a generic computer implementation.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “determining features between two images; generating a fragment based upon differences between the features”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the limitation “consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite additional claim elements.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, there are no additional claim elements. In light of the above, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation that is performed in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite additional claim elements.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, there are no additional claim elements. In light of the above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “determining the speed threshold based upon kinematics data values in the database corresponding to times when surgical instruments were being withdrawn.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim recites the additional claim elements “consulting a database comprising surgical instrument speed data projected upon reference geometries for a plurality of surgical operations”. This step merely amounts to pre-solution insignificant activities.
This additional element, taken individually or in combination, merely amounts to insignificant extra solution activities because they pertain to merely data gathering in a generic computer implementation.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Yoshie et al., (US20160081531A1) teaches of consulting past procedures to determine a threshold. As such, this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity, and there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 6.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “filtering the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model to produce a filtered portion”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites “determining centerline endpoints based upon the filtered portion; generating a new local centerline from poses of the surgical instrument; and extending the centerline with the new local centerline.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite further claim elements
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite further claim elements and is thus ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “determining a weighted average between pairs of points in the first array and in the second array”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites “determining a first array of points on the centerline; determining a second array of points on the new local centerline”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite further claim elements
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite further claim elements and is thus ineligible.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- The claim recites a method for assessing surgical instrument progress and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with the pose data; responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument projected upon the centerline,”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the limitation “constructing at least a portion of a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the patient interior; projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model;”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim recites the following addition elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non- transitory computer- readable medium comprising instructions configured to cause a computer system to perform a method for assessing progress of a surgical instrument within a patient interior, the method comprising: causing feedback to be displayed on a display device”. These steps merely amount to pre-solution insignificant activities, as the feedback displayed is simply data output to a display, and does not necessarily have to be related to the speed threshold response.
This additional element, taken individually or in combination, merely amounts to insignificant extra solution activities because they pertain to a generic computer implementation.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 21.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “determining features between two images; generating a fragment based upon differences between the features”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the limitation “consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite additional claim elements.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, there are no additional claim elements. In light of the above, claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 21.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation that is performed in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite additional claim elements.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, there are no additional claim elements. In light of the above, claim 23 is ineligible.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 21.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “determining the speed threshold based upon speed data values in the database corresponding to times when surgical instruments were being withdrawn.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim recites the additional claim elements “ consulting a database comprising surgical instrument speed data projected upon reference geometries for a plurality of surgical operations”. This step merely amounts to pre-solution insignificant activities.
This additional element, taken individually or in combination, merely amounts to insignificant extra solution activities because they pertain to merely data gathering in a generic computer implementation.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 26.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “filtering the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model to produce a filtered portion”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites “determining centerline endpoints based upon the filtered portion; generating a new local centerline from poses of the surgical instrument; and extending the centerline with the new local centerline.”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite further claim elements
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite further claim elements and is thus ineligible.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 27.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- the claim recites “determining a weighted average between pairs of points in the first array and in the second array”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites “determining a first array of points on the centerline; determining a second array of points on the new local centerline”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite further claim elements
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the claim does not recite further claim elements and is thus ineligible.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- The claim recites a computer system for assessing surgical instrument progress and is therefore a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with the pose data; responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument projected upon the centerline,”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the limitation “constructing at least a portion of a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the patient interior; projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model;”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim recites the following addition elements “A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, the at least one memory comprising instructions configured to cause the computer system to perform a method for assessing progress of a surgical instrument within a patient interior, the method comprising: causing feedback to be displayed on a display device”. These steps merely amount to pre-solution insignificant activities, as the feedback displayed is simply data output to a display, and does not necessarily have to be related to the speed threshold response.
This additional element, taken individually or in combination, merely amounts to insignificant extra solution activities because they pertain to a generic computer implementation.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 41.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “determining features between two images; generating a fragment based upon differences between the two features”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation (BRI), covers an abstract idea, more specifically a process that can be performed in the human mind. That is, nothing in the listed claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or performed with the aid of a pen and paper, and/or performing the process in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites the limitation “consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite additional claim elements.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, there are no additional claim elements. In light of the above, claim 42 is ineligible.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- for the same reasons put forth in claim 41.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- The claim recites the limitation “providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model”
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step, that, under its BRI, covers an abstract idea, more specifically a mathematical concept. That is, the listed claim recites a mathematical calculation that is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic equation such as exponentiation that is performed in a computer environment. Accordingly, the claim recites a mathematical concept-type abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not recite additional claim elements.
Step2B Inventive Concept: No- Similarly to Step2A Prong 2, there are no additional claim elements. In light of the above, claim 43 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 21, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al., RNNSLAM: Reconstructing the 3D colon to visualize missing regions during a colonoscopy. Med Image Anal. 2021 Aug;72:102100. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2021.102100. Epub 2021 May 19. PMID: 34102478; PMCID: PMC8316389. (hereinafter “Ma”) in view of Shina et al., (US20060036167A1) and further in view of Kamijo et al., (US20250139769A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches A computer-implemented method for assessing surgical instrument progress within a patient interior (Section 1. Introduction, 1.2 Solution: Reconstruction 3D Colon by SLAM: an endoscopists can visualize the missing parts during an colonoscopy through reconstruction), the method comprising: constructing at least a portion of a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the patient interior based upon pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with pose data (4.1 Pipeline Step 6 Fusion: fuse the RGB values, the RNN-predicted depth map and optimized camera poses into a global mesh; Section 5 Experiments; 5.1 Qualitative Results “—Fig. 10 shows the incremental fusion process of a chunk of colon. The camera is moving along with the latest keyframe. The snapshots were captured in real time.” Fig. 10-14 show reconstruction examples with missing regions); and a centerline associated with the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (Section 5 Experiments; 5.3.1 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions for each 3D colon chuck surface, a straight centerline is established).
However Ma fail to explicitly disclose projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.
In the same tracking Shina teaches projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with at least the portion of the three-dimensional model ([0013] a position of the catheter tip is estimated by measuring motion and projecting that motion along a vessel in the 3D data set, and can be motion or speed [0127] the axial position along the vessel is estimated along the vessel centerline in the 3D data set; therefore, the speed is projected along the vessel centerline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Ma with the speed analysis of Shina, as this would allow for enhanced presentation (see Shina [0008]).
However, the combination of references still fails to explicitly disclose responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument, causing feedback to be displayed on a display device.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Kamijo teaches responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument ([0032] the system detects if the withdrawal speed exceeds the threshold), causing feedback to be displayed on a display device ([0032] the result of if the speed exceeds the threshold is displayed on the display;[0057] “x (FAST)” is displayed when the speed is higher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Ma with the feedback of Kamijo, as this would make it possible to efficiently determine whether or not to perform the operation again (see Kamijo [0018]).
Regarding claim 21, Ma teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non- transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions configured to cause a computer system to perform a method for assessing progress of a surgical instrument within a patient interior, the method comprising (Section 1. Introduction, 1.2 Solution: Reconstruction 3D Colon by SLAM: an endoscopists can visualize the missing parts during an colonoscopy through reconstruction):
constructing at least a portion of a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the patient interior based upon pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with pose data (4.1 Pipeline Step 6 Fusion: fuse the RGB values, the RNN-predicted depth map and optimized camera poses into a global mesh; Section 5 Experiments; 5.1 Qualitative Results “—Fig. 10 shows the incremental fusion process of a chunk of colon. The camera is moving along with the latest keyframe. The snapshots were captured in real time.” Fig. 10-14 show reconstruction examples with missing regions); and
a centerline associated with the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (Section 5 Experiments; 5.3.1 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions for each 3D colon chuck surface, a straight centerline is established).
However Ma fail to explicitly disclose projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.
In the same tracking Shina teaches projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with at least the portion of the three-dimensional model ([0013] a position of the catheter tip is estimated by measuring motion and projecting that motion along a vessel in the 3D data set, and can be motion or speed [0127] the axial position along the vessel is estimated along the vessel centerline in the 3D data set; therefore, the speed is projected along the vessel centerline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the instructions of Ma with the speed analysis of Shina, as this would allow for enhanced presentation (see Shina [0008]).
However, the combination of references still fails to explicitly disclose responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument, causing feedback to be displayed on a display device.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Kamijo teaches responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument ([0032] the system detects if the withdrawal speed exceeds the threshold), causing feedback to be displayed on a display device ([0032] the result of if the speed exceeds the threshold is displayed on the display;[0057] “x (FAST)” is displayed when the speed is higher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the instructions of modified Ma with the feedback of Kamijo, as this would make it possible to efficiently determine whether or not to perform the operation again (see Kamijo [0018]).
Regarding claim 41, Ma teaches A computer system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, the at least one memory comprising instructions configured to cause the computer system to perform a method for assessing surgical instrument progress within a patient interior, the method comprising (Section 1. Introduction, 1.2 Solution: Reconstruction 3D Colon by SLAM: an endoscopists can visualize the missing parts during an colonoscopy through reconstruction, and the reconstruction would be done on a computer, which would inherently have a processor, and memory for the instructions),
(Section 1. Introduction, 1.2 Solution: Reconstruction 3D Colon by SLAM: an endoscopists can visualize the missing parts during an colonoscopy through reconstruction):
constructing at least a portion of a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the patient interior based upon pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with pose data (4.1 Pipeline Step 6 Fusion: fuse the RGB values, the RNN-predicted depth map and optimized camera poses into a global mesh; Section 5 Experiments; 5.1 Qualitative Results “—Fig. 10 shows the incremental fusion process of a chunk of colon. The camera is moving along with the latest keyframe. The snapshots were captured in real time.” Fig. 10-14 show reconstruction examples with missing regions); and
a centerline associated with the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (Section 5 Experiments; 5.3.1 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions for each 3D colon chuck surface, a straight centerline is established).
However Ma fail to explicitly disclose projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.
In the same tracking Shina teaches projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with at least the portion of the three-dimensional model ([0013] a position of the catheter tip is estimated by measuring motion and projecting that motion along a vessel in the 3D data set, and can be motion or speed [0127] the axial position along the vessel is estimated along the vessel centerline in the 3D data set; therefore, the speed is projected along the vessel centerline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Ma with the speed analysis of Shina, as this would allow for enhanced presentation (see Shina [0008]).
However, the combination of references still fails to explicitly disclose responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument, causing feedback to be displayed on a display device.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Kamijo teaches responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument ([0032] the system detects if the withdrawal speed exceeds the threshold), causing feedback to be displayed on a display device ([0032] the result of if the speed exceeds the threshold is displayed on the display;[0057] “x (FAST)” is displayed when the speed is higher).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of modified Ma with the feedback of Kamijo, as this would make it possible to efficiently determine whether or not to perform the operation again (see Kamijo [0018]).
Claims 2, 22, and 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claim 1, 21, and 41, respectively, above, and further in view of Freedman et al., "Detecting Deficient Coverage in Colonoscopies," in IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 3451-3462, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1109/TMI.2020.2994221. (hereinafter “Freedman”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ma further teaches wherein constructing the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model of the at least the portion of the patient interior based upon the pose data and the depth data, comprises (Section 5 Experiments; 5.1 Qualitative Results “—Fig. 10 shows the incremental fusion process of a chunk of colon. The camera is moving along with the latest keyframe. The snapshots were captured in real time.” Fig. 10-14 show reconstruction examples): generating a fragment (4.5 Fusion SurfelMeshing creates a surfel cloud that is used to generate a triangle mesh from the surfel cloud); consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (4.5 the triangle mesh is generated from the surfel cloud).
However, modified Ma fails to explicitly disclose determining features between two images; and differences between the features.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Freedman teaches determining features between two images (page 4 the current and previous RGB frames It and It-1 are used to get the pose; image metric δ is the loss between two images, which is governed by L1 difference and structural similarity); differences between the two feature (page 4 the current and previous RGB frames It and It-1 are used to get the pose; image metric δ is the loss between two images, which is governed by L1 difference and structural similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of using difference features as taught by Freedman to the features of Ma, as both inventions relate to endoscopic image processing, and would yield the predictable result of an image reconstruction method that utilizes image differences when reconstructing the model of a colon to one ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a technique, and the results of modified Ma utilizing the difference features to generate fragments and then consolidating those fragments to form a portion of the model are reasonably predictable. This would result in improved depth estimation and reconstruction consistency. One of ordinary skill would understand that the difference features would apply to the fragments taught by Ma, and result in the reading of the limitation “determining features between two images; generating a fragment based upon differences between the features; and consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.”
Regarding claim 22, modified Ma teaches the instructions of claim 21, wherein Ma further teaches wherein constructing the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model of the at least the portion of the patient interior based upon the pose data and the depth data, comprises (Section 5 Experiments; 5.1 Qualitative Results “—Fig. 10 shows the incremental fusion process of a chunk of colon. The camera is moving along with the latest keyframe. The snapshots were captured in real time.” Fig. 10-14 show reconstruction examples): generating a fragment (4.5 Fusion SurfelMeshing creates a surfel cloud that is used to generate a triangle mesh from the surfel cloud); consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (4.5 the triangle mesh is generated from the surfel cloud).
However, modified Ma fails to explicitly disclose determining features between two images; and differences between the features.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Freedman teaches determining features between two images (page 4 the current and previous RGB frames It and It-1 are used to get the pose; image metric δ is the loss between two images, which is governed by L1 difference and structural similarity); differences between the two feature (page 4 the current and previous RGB frames It and It-1 are used to get the pose; image metric δ is the loss between two images, which is governed by L1 difference and structural similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of using difference features as taught by Freedman to the features of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to endoscopic image processing, and would yield the predictable result of an image reconstruction method that utilizes image differences when reconstructing the model of a colon to one ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a technique, and the results of modified Ma utilizing the difference features to generate fragments and then consolidating those fragments to form a portion of the model are reasonably predictable. This would result in improved depth estimation and reconstruction consistency. One of ordinary skill would understand that the difference features would apply to the fragments taught by Ma, and result in the reading of the limitation “determining features between two images; generating a fragment based upon differences between the features; and consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.”
Regarding claim 42, modified Ma teaches the system of claim 41, wherein Ma further teaches wherein constructing the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model of the at least the portion of the patient interior based upon the pose data and the depth data, comprises (Section 5 Experiments; 5.1 Qualitative Results “—Fig. 10 shows the incremental fusion process of a chunk of colon. The camera is moving along with the latest keyframe. The snapshots were captured in real time.” Fig. 10-14 show reconstruction examples): generating a fragment (4.5 Fusion SurfelMeshing creates a surfel cloud that is used to generate a triangle mesh from the surfel cloud); consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (4.5 the triangle mesh is generated from the surfel cloud).
However, modified Ma fails to explicitly disclose determining features between two images; and differences between the features.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Freedman teaches determining features between two images (page 4 the current and previous RGB frames It and It-1 are used to get the pose; image metric δ is the loss between two images, which is governed by L1 difference and structural similarity); differences between the two feature (page 4 the current and previous RGB frames It and It-1 are used to get the pose; image metric δ is the loss between two images, which is governed by L1 difference and structural similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of using difference features as taught by Freedman to the features of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to endoscopic image processing, and would yield the predictable result of an image reconstruction method that utilizes image differences when reconstructing the model of a colon to one ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a technique, and the results of Ma utilizing the difference features to generate fragments and then consolidating those fragments to form a portion of the model are reasonably predictable. This would result in improved depth estimation and reconstruction consistency. One of ordinary skill would understand that the difference features would apply to the fragments taught by modified Ma, and result in the reading of the limitation “determining features between two images; generating a fragment based upon differences between the features; and consolidating the fragments to form the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.”
Claims 3, 23, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Ma as applied to claim 1, 21, and 41, respectively, above, and further in view of Song et al., “Semantic Scene Completion from a Single Depth Image” arXiv:1611.08974v1 [cs.CV] 28 Nov 2016 (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein Ma teaches determining the position of the centerline comprises(Section 5 Experiments; 5.31 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions for each 3D colon chuck surface, a straight centerline is established); but is silent regarding providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.
In a reference pertinent to the problem of 3D reconstruction, Song teaches providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (page 1-2, given a single-view depth map as input, the semantic scene completion network produces labels for all voxels in the view frustrum, and the prediction extends beyond the projection surface implied by the depth map, and thus providing occupancy information for the entire scene.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of providing depth data to a neural network as taught by Song to the method of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to 3D reconstruction from images, and would yield the predictable result of a reconstruction process that includes utilizing depth data to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a technique, and the results of Ma utilizing depth data as in input for a neural network are reasonably predictable. This would allow for enhanced visualization as the missing geometry may be predicted beyond the observed surface.
Regarding claim 23, modified Ma teaches the instructions of claim 21, wherein Ma teaches determining the position of the centerline comprises(Section 5 Experiments; 5.31 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions for each 3D colon chuck surface, a straight centerline is established); but is silent regarding providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.
In a reference pertinent to the problem of 3D reconstruction, Song teaches providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (page 1-2, given a single-view depth map as input, the semantic scene completion network produces labels for all voxels in the view frustrum, and the prediction extends beyond the projection surface implied by the depth map, and thus providing occupancy information for the entire scene.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of providing depth data to a neural network as taught by Song to the medium of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to 3D reconstruction from images, and would yield the predictable result of a reconstruction process that includes utilizing depth data to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a technique, and the results of Ma utilizing depth data as in input for a neural network are reasonably predictable. This would allow for enhanced visualization as the missing geometry may be predicted beyond the observed surface.
Regarding claim 43, modified Ma teaches the system of claim 41, wherein Ma teaches determining the position of the centerline comprises(Section 5 Experiments; 5.31 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions for each 3D colon chuck surface, a straight centerline is established); but is silent regarding providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model.
In a reference pertinent to the problem of 3D reconstruction, Song teaches providing the depth data to a neural network configured to in-fill portions of the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model (page 1-2, given a single-view depth map as input, the semantic scene completion network produces labels for all voxels in the view frustrum, and the prediction extends beyond the projection surface implied by the depth map, and thus providing occupancy information for the entire scene.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of providing depth data to a neural network as taught by Song to the system of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to 3D reconstruction from images, and would yield the predictable result of a reconstruction process that includes utilizing depth data to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a technique, and the results of Ma utilizing depth data as in input for a neural network are reasonably predictable. This would allow for enhanced visualization as the missing geometry may be predicted beyond the observed surface.
Claims 6 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as modified by Shina, and Kamijo applied to claim 1 and 21, respectively, above, and further in view of Yoshie et al., (US20160081531A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ma teaches the method of claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose consulting a database comprising surgical instrument data projected upon reference for a plurality of surgical operations; and determining the threshold based upon data in the data corresponding to times when the instrument is being used.
In the same endoscope field of endeavor, Yoshi teaches consulting a database comprising surgical instrument data projected upon reference for a plurality of surgical operations; and determining the threshold based upon data in the data corresponding to times when the instrument is being used ([0008] a threshold setting section that sets a threshold on the basis of measurement results that were acquired for the same serial number in the past stored in the storing section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application apply the known technique of setting a threshold based on past measurements as taught by Yoshie to the method of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to endoscopic procedures, and would yield the predictable result of a speed threshold being based on past operations to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of modified Ma using past operations to determine a threshold are reasonably predictable.
However, the combination of references are silent regarding the kinematics data values and when the surgical instruments were being withdrawn.
In the same intraluminal field of endeavor, Kamijo teaches the kinematics data projected upon reference geometries ([0049] there is a predetermined threshold value for withdrawal speed that is determined in advance; [0024] the instrument is inserted along the centerline of the vessel, and therefore the data would be along the centerline); and when the surgical instruments were being withdrawn([0049] there is a predetermined threshold value for withdrawal speed that is determined in advance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of implementing a speed threshold for the instrument as taught by Kamijo to the method of Ma, as both inventions relate to intraluminal devices, and would yield the predictable result of the movement of an instrument having a speed threshold to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of Ma implementing a speed threshold for the camera are reasonably predictable. This would result in minimizing the risk of damage done by the camera to the patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that implementing the speed threshold of Kamijo through the use of past data of modified Ma would result in the reading upon the limitation of “consulting a database comprising surgical instrument kinematics data projected upon reference geometries for a plurality of surgical operations; and determining the kinematics threshold based upon kinematics data values in the database corresponding to times when surgical instruments were being withdrawn.”
Regarding claim 26, modified Ma teaches the method of claim 21, but fails to explicitly disclose consulting a database comprising surgical instrument data projected upon reference for a plurality of surgical operations; and determining the threshold based upon data in the data corresponding to times when the instrument is being used.
In the same endoscope field of endeavor, Yoshi teaches consulting a database comprising surgical instrument data projected upon reference for a plurality of surgical operations; and determining the threshold based upon data in the data corresponding to times when the instrument is being used ([0008] a threshold setting section that sets a threshold on the basis of measurement results that were acquired for the same serial number in the past stored in the storing section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application apply the known technique of setting a threshold based on past measurements as taught by Yoshie to the method of modified Ma, as both inventions relate to endoscopic procedures, and would yield the predictable result of a speed threshold being based on past operations to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of modified Ma using past operations to determine a threshold are reasonably predictable.
However, the combination of references are silent regarding the kinematics data values and when the surgical instruments were being withdrawn.
In the same intraluminal field of endeavor, Kamijo teaches the kinematics data projected upon reference geometries ([0049] there is a predetermined threshold value for withdrawal speed that is determined in advance; [0024] the instrument is inserted along the centerline of the vessel, and therefore the data would be along the centerline); and when the surgical instruments were being withdrawn([0049] there is a predetermined threshold value for withdrawal speed that is determined in advance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the technique of implementing a speed threshold for the instrument as taught by Kamijo to the method of Ma, as both inventions relate to intraluminal devices, and would yield the predictable result of the movement of an instrument having a speed threshold to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply such a technique, and the results of Ma implementing a speed threshold for the camera are reasonably predictable. This would result in minimizing the risk of damage done by the camera to the patient. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that implementing the speed threshold of Kamijo through the use of past data of modified Ma would result in the reading upon the limitation of “consulting a database comprising surgical instrument kinematics data projected upon reference geometries for a plurality of surgical operations; and determining the kinematics threshold based upon kinematics data values in the database corresponding to times when surgical instruments were being withdrawn.”
Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as modified by Shina, Kamijo, and Yoshie applied to claim 6 and 26, respectively, above, and further in view of Goel et al., (US20190279367A1) and Mao (US20230214952A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ma teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Ma teaches generating a new local centerline from poses of the surgical instrument (5.3.1 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions the centerline for each 3D colon chunk is established, and these 3D chunks are modeled from the depth and pose; 4.1 Pipeline Step 6 Fusion: fuse the RGB values), but fails to explicitly disclose filtering the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model to produce a filtered portion.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Goel teaches filtering the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model to produce a filtered portion (fig. 1 the image is preprocessed at step 104 and is then the centerline is identified 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Ma with the preprocessing of Goel, as this would allow in the facilitation of repairing a variety of anatomical structures by providing an accurate representation of those structures (see Goel [0034]).
However, the combination are still silent regarding determining centerline endpoints based upon the filtered portion; and extending the centerline with the new local centerline.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Mao teaches determining centerline endpoints based upon the filtered portion ([0157] the processing device 130 determines a first and second endpoint, and determines a centerline between the points); and extending the centerline with the new local centerline ([0157] the processing device may also connect the centerlines of adjacent sub fragments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Ma with the centerline generation process of Mao, as this would help improve the extraction of centerlines from images (see Mao [0004]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Ma teaches the medium of claim 26, wherein Ma teaches generating a new local centerline from poses of the surgical instrument (5.3.1 Quantify Unsurveyed Regions the centerline for each 3D colon chunk is established, and these 3D chunks are modeled from the depth and pose; 4.1 Pipeline Step 6 Fusion: fuse the RGB values), but fails to explicitly disclose filtering the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model to produce a filtered portion.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Goel teaches filtering the at least the portion of the three-dimensional model to produce a filtered portion (fig. 1 the image is preprocessed at step 104 and is then the centerline is identified 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Ma with the preprocessing of Goel, as this would allow in the facilitation of repairing a variety of anatomical structures by providing an accurate representation of those structures (see Goel [0034]).
However, the combination are still silent regarding determining centerline endpoints based upon the filtered portion; and extending the centerline with the new local centerline.
In the same image processing field of endeavor, Mao teaches determining centerline endpoints based upon the filtered portion ([0157] the processing device 130 determines a first and second endpoint, and determines a centerline between the points); and extending the centerline with the new local centerline ([0157] the processing device may also connect the centerlines of adjacent sub fragments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of modified Ma with the centerline generation process of Mao, as this would help improve the extraction of centerlines from images (see Mao [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the limitations “constructing a three-dimensional model based upon pose data associated with the surgical instrument and depth data associated with the pose data; (ii) projecting a speed of the surgical instrument upon a centerline associated with the three-dimensional model; and (iii) responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument projected upon the centerline, causing feedback to be displayed on a display device” overcomes the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection. In particular, Applicant argues that none of the steps can be considered mental processes, and that even if they were, they are eligible because they are integrated into a practical application because the user can be informed that their motions are too quick.
Examiner disagrees. Constructing a three-dimensional model is considered a mathematical concept that’s performed in a generical computer environment, while the pose data and the depth data can be determined by a mental process. Further, projecting a speed of the instrument upon a centerline associated upon a centerline can be considered a mathematical concept implemented in a generic computer environment. Further, responsive to the projected speed of the surgical instrument during withdrawal exceeding a speed threshold for motion of at least a portion of the surgical instrument projected upon the centerline, causing feedback to be displayed on a display device does not integrate the claim into practical application, as the limitation’s, as written, is simply outputting data to a display device and does not contain the improvement or advantage of slowing down the withdraw speed. In addition, the feedback can technically not be related to the speed threshold, as the claim does not specify the result of the feedback being displayed on the display.
For these reasons, the claim 1 is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The remaining claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 21-23, 26-28, and 41-43 have been 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. Ma has not been used to teach projecting a speed of a surgical instrument upon a centerline limitation. Instead, Ma in view of Shina and Kamijo has been used to the limitations of claim 1.
The remaining claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as above.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 5712722714. 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.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights