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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the opening paragraph, the priority information should be set forth.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims are directed to a method and system in claims 1 and 3-8.
Step 2A, Prong I: The claims recite abstract ideas, in particular, mathematical concepts and mental steps including determining a piece of the comparison model data that has a highest degree of similarity (mental process), setting and applying registration using ICP (mathematical concept), and converting using a coordinate transformation formula (mathematical concept). The dependent claims merely further limit the steps of the independent claims that are mental steps.
Step 2A, Prong II: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claim merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or system. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g). Claim 1 recites a computer or system for holding information, which is insignificant extra-solution activity
Analysis step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer or system for holding information are additional elements that are considered as well understood routine conventional activity (as part of a computing device).
Claims 1 and 3-8 are therefore directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1 and 6-8 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.
In claim 1, line 21, it is unclear whether the ICP algorithm is the same as the previously recited algorithm. In line 22, it appears ‘a target’ and ‘a piece’ should be ‘the target’ and ‘the piece’.
In claim 6, the structure of the system is unclear as the body only includes functions of the system.
In claim 6, line 20, it is unclear whether the ICP algorithm is the same as the previously recited algorithm. In line 22, it appears ‘a target’ and ‘a piece’ should be ‘the target’ and ‘the piece’.
In claim 7, line 2, ‘the point’ lacks antecedence.
In claim 8, ‘non-transitory’ should be placed before ‘computer-readable’ to set clearly set for the medium.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (“Automated Heart and Lung Auscultation in Robotic Physical Examinations” -cited by applicant).
Re claims 1, 6, 8: Zhu discloses a medical navigation method performed by a computer system for arranging a medical device on a subject, wherein the computer system holds three-dimensional point cloud information of the subject as body model data of the subject, and holds N pieces of comparison model data showing human body shapes (N is an integer equal to or greater than 2), and arrangement data showing a position for arrangement of the medical device in each of the pieces of the comparison model data (pg 4207-4208, figure 4; see the 3D point cloud of the subject and the plurality of reference models of body types wherein computer processing is implied), and the medical navigation method comprising:
a step for determining a piece of the comparison model data that has the highest degree of similarity between it and the body model data of the subject, in the N pieces of the comparison model data, as reference model data (pg 4208; see the plurality of reference models, wherein it is implied that the closest body type is chosen);
a step for setting, as a target, the body model data of the subject, and applying registration using a non-rigid ICP (interactive closest point) algorithm to the reference model data (pg 4208, figure 4; see the nonrigid ICP applied to the reference model); and
a step for converting, by using a coordinate transformation formula, obtained as a result of the registration, for the three-dimensional point cloud information between the body model data of the subject and the reference model data, the arrangement data in the reference model data to arrangement data for the medical device in the body model data of the subject (pg 4208, figure 4; see the auscultation locations that corresponds to arrangement data),
wherein the step for determining, as reference model data. a piece of the comparison model data that has the highest degree of similarity between it and the body model data of the subject includes: calculating a chamfer distance between each of the N pieces of the comparison model data and the body model data of the subject, the each of the N pieces of the comparison model data being applied in advance with registration using an ICP algorithm, in which the body model data of the subject is set as a target: and determining, as the reference model data, a piece of the comparison model data with respect to that the chamfer distance is minimum (pg 4208, 4210; see the ICP applied from reference [32] to provide an initial alignment which includes a calculation of distances (interpreted to be “chamfer” distances from an edge/chamfer of the model), wherein the minimum distance corresponds to a reference model that is most similar).
The method is performed by a medical navigation system as a computer readable medium with a program to perform the method (pg 4207; see the algorithm and processing which implies a program on a computer performs the method steps).
Re claim 3: The point cloud information is obtained by taking images of the subject from multiple positions (pg 4208; see the RGB-D camera that takes images as the robot arm moves).
Re claim 4: The method includes a step for outputting the arrangement data for the medical device, in the body model data of the subject, to a remote computer device (pg 4206, figure 4; see the remote assessment and the registration result with auscultation locations).
Re claim 5: The medical device is a stethoscope or an ultrasound probe (pg 4208; see the stethoscope).
Re claim 7: The system incudes a robot arm and an RGB-D camera that is attached to the point of the robot arm, wherein the three-dimensional point cloud information of the subject is obtained multiple obtained three-dimensional point cloud information. that are multiple pieces of the three-dimensional point cloud information of the subject, is obtained as a result that the RGB-D camera takes images of the subject from multiple imaging positions as the robot arm moves, and the multiple three-dimensional point cloud information of the subject is obtained based on correspondence relationship between points overlapping with one another in the multiple pieces of the obtained three-dimensional point cloud information (pg 4208, figure 4; see the RGB-D camera that takes images as the robot arm moves to obtain the 3D point cloud information for multiple pieces of information).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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 T ROZANSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
