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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“means for receiving imaging data of a first region of the patient's body or the patient model” (first imager 12 of fig. 1 comprising ultrasound, fluoroscope or magnetic resonance imaging apparatus); “means for receiving tracking data of one or more instruments that are inserted in a second region of the patient's body or the patient model” (electromagnetic trackers 25 and 36 of figs. 2(a) and 2(b)) ; “means for receiving model data of a fourth region of the patient's body or the patient model”; and “a processing means adapted for co-registering tracking data and model data” in claim 1 (processor 50 of fig. 1).
“means for receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model” in claim 36 (second imager 34 of fig. 1 comprising a camera).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 35-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 35 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of the “means for receiving model data of a fourth region of the patient's body”. That is, the disclosure fails to properly describe the structural element that receives the model data. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 35-48 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.
Claim limitation “means for receiving model data of a fourth region of the patient's body” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Objections
Claims 35 and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35 recites “wherein the system comprises means for receiving model data of a fourth region of the patient's body” and claim 36 recites “the pose data belonging to a third region”. The claims should be amended to recite appropriate ordinal numbers consistent with appearance in the claims.
Claim 46 should be amended as follows: --wherein at least one of the distributed sensors for generating the tracking data comprises an optical fiber and/or at least --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35, 37-40, 42-44, 46-49, and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiner, et al., US 20200188028 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 07/24/2025) in view of Wong, et al., US 20240238049 A1.
Regarding claim 35, Feiner teaches a system for providing a visualization during a medical procedure on a patient or a simulated medical procedure on a patient model ([0008]), the system comprising:
means for receiving imaging data of a first region of the patient's body or the patient model (see fig. 3 and [0030] for transformed data 320);
means for receiving tracking data of one or more instruments that are inserted in a second region of the patient's body or the patient model (see fig. 3 and [0035] for live tracking data 330);
wherein the system comprises means for receiving model data of a fourth region of the patient's body or the patient model (see fig. 3 and [0030] for 3D model 310), and
a processing means adapted for co-registering tracking data and model data (see 350 of fig. 3 and [0035]-[0036] for the localizing the tracked instrument in fluoroscopic images);
the system comprises a display for simultaneous visualization of the co-registered data and the imaging data (see fig. 3 and [0039] for display 370);
the tracking data is used to determine a position and/or shape and/or orientation of at least one of the one or more instruments ([0035]-[0036]);
the visualization comprises a representation of the position and/or the orientation of at least one of the one or more instruments, and a representation of a shape of at least one of the one or more instruments ([0039]).
Feiner does not teach the tracking data comprises three or more tracking points, wherein the three tracking points are not colinear; and/or the tracking data comprises one or more tracking points and/or a corresponding orientation by means of a corresponding roll, pitch and yaw angle, or a set of Euler angles or a set of quaternions, or an angle-axis representation or a rotation matrix, or a homogeneous transformation matrix, and/or a point cloud representation, for at least one of the one or more instruments; and wherein the tracking data is generated by one or more sensors that are distributed along and embedded in and/or fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more instruments, the distributed sensors being configured to conform to the shape of the instrument and to enable derivation of a shape of the instrument during the procedure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wong teaches system for performing a medical procedure includes an elongate flexible device configured to be introduced into an anatomic cavity of a patient, and a sensor system carried by the elongate flexible device and configured to obtain location data of the anatomic structure (see abstract), and further teaching that the tracking data comprises three or more tracking points, wherein the three tracking points are not colinear; and/or the tracking data comprises one or more tracking points and/or a corresponding orientation by means of a corresponding roll, pitch and yaw angle, or a set of Euler angles or a set of quaternions, or an angle-axis representation or a rotation matrix, or a homogeneous transformation matrix, and/or a point cloud representation, for at least one of the one or more instruments ([0020]); and wherein the tracking data is generated by one or more sensors that are distributed along and embedded in and/or fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more instruments, the distributed sensors being configured to conform to the shape of the instrument and to enable derivation of a shape of the instrument during the procedure ([0005] discloses a sensor system carried by the elongate flexible device and configured to obtain location data of the anatomic structure of the elongate flexible device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Feiner, wherein the tracking data comprises three or more tracking points, wherein the three tracking points are not colinear; and/or the tracking data comprises one or more tracking points and/or a corresponding orientation by means of a corresponding roll, pitch and yaw angle, or a set of Euler angles or a set of quaternions, or an angle-axis representation or a rotation matrix, or a homogeneous transformation matrix, and/or a point cloud representation, for at least one of the one or more instruments; and wherein the tracking data is generated by one or more sensors that are distributed along and embedded in and/or fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more instruments, the distributed sensors being configured to conform to the shape of the instrument and to enable derivation of a shape of the instrument during the procedure, as taught by Wong, to improve the effectiveness of minimally invasive medical tools and techniques ([0003]).
Regarding claim 37, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein: the model data and tracking data comprise 3D data ([0007]); a shape of the instruments is determined according to the tracking data comprising time-related data ([0035]-[0036]); the display is a 3D display ([0039]); and a representation of the model data and the representation of a shape, position and/or orientation of the one or more instruments are 3D representations ([0007]).
Regarding claim 38, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the imaging data is 2D data that is processed to allow for visualization on the 3D display ([0064]).
Regarding claim 39, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein there is at least a partial overlap between two or more regions ([0064]) and wherein the visualization comprises an overlay of the representation of the data originating from the two or more regions ([0031]).
Regarding claim 40, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 39 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the overlay is presented aligned on corresponding data or wherein the overlay can be positioned and repositioned during the procedure such as to offer a desired view for a user ([0031]).
Regarding claim 42, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the co-registration of the model data, imaging data, tracking data and orientation data occurs in a continuous or intermittent manner during the procedure ([0031] discloses that the 3D model 310 and live 2D fluoroscopy can be fused using a co-registration algorithm, which can allow for transformation of the 3D model 310 to match the live fluoroscopy).
Regarding claim 43, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the model data is generated prior to the procedure ([0027]).
Regarding claim 44, Feiner in view of Wo ng teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the imaging data is generated during the surgical procedure ([0027]).
Regarding claim 46, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner fails to teach wherein at least one of the distributed sensors for generating the tracking data comprises an optical fiber and/or at least one comprises one or more electromagnetic trackers.
However, Wong further teaches wherein at least one of the distributed sensors for generating the tracking data comprises an optical fiber and/or at least one comprises one or more electromagnetic trackers ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Feiner, wherein at least one of the distributed sensors for generating the tracking data comprises an optical fiber and/or at least one comprises one or more electromagnetic trackers, as taught by Wong, to improve the effectiveness of minimally invasive medical tools and techniques ([0003]).
Regarding claim 47, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner fails to teach wherein the distributed sensors are configured to provide spatially resolved measurements along the length of the instrument, enabling derivation of the instrument shape in real time.
However, Wong further wherein the distributed sensors are configured to provide spatially resolved measurements along the length of the instrument, enabling derivation of the instrument shape in real time ([0051] discloses embedded shape sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Feiner, wherein the distributed sensors are configured to provide spatially resolved measurements along the length of the instrument, enabling derivation of the instrument shape in real time, as taught by Wong, to improve the effectiveness of minimally invasive medical tools and techniques ([0003]).
Regarding claim 48, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner fails to teach wherein the distributed sensors are integrated such that the instrument can be used as an all-in-one device without the need for external tracking infrastructure.
However, Wong further teaches wherein the distributed sensors are integrated such that the instrument can be used as an all-in-one device without the need for external tracking infrastructure ([0051] discloses embedded shape sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Feiner, wherein the distributed sensors are configured to provide spatially resolved measurements along the length of the instrument, enabling derivation of the instrument shape in real time, as taught by Wong, to improve the effectiveness of minimally invasive medical tools and techniques ([0003]).
Regarding claim 49, Feiner teaches a method for providing a visualization during a medical procedure on a patient or simulated medical procedure on a patient model (abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving imaging data of a first region of a patient's body or the patient model (see fig. 3 and [0030] for transformed data 320);
receiving tracking data of one or more instruments that are inserted in a second region of the patient's body or the patient model (see fig. 3 and [0035] for live tracking data 330);
receiving model data of a fourth region of the patient's body or the patient model (see fig. 3 and [0030] for 3D model 310);
co-registering the tracking data and model data (see 350 of fig. 3 and [0035]-[0036] for the localizing the tracked instrument in fluoroscopic images);
simultaneously visualizing imaging data and the co-registered data (see fig. 3 and [0039] for display 370); and
Feiner does not teach generating the tracking data by one or more sensors that are distributed along and embedded in or fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more instruments, the distributed sensors being configured to conform to the shape of the instrument and to enable derivation of a shape of the instrument during the procedure.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Wong teaches a method for performing a medical procedure includes an elongate flexible device configured to be introduced into an anatomic cavity of a patient, and a sensor system carried by the elongate flexible device and configured to obtain location data of the anatomic structure (see abstract) and further teaches generating the tracking data by one or more sensors that are distributed along and embedded in or fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more instruments, the distributed sensors being configured to conform to the shape of the instrument and to enable derivation of a shape of the instrument during the procedure ([0005] discloses a sensor system carried by the elongate flexible device and configured to obtain location data of the anatomic structure of the elongate flexible device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Feiner, for generating the tracking data by one or more sensors that are distributed along and embedded in or fixedly attached to at least one of the one or more instruments, the distributed sensors being configured to conform to the shape of the instrument and to enable derivation of a shape of the instrument during the procedure, as taught by Wong, to improve the effectiveness of minimally invasive medical tools and techniques ([0003]).
Regarding claim 51, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 49 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein: the model data and tracking data comprise 3D data ([0007]); a shape of the instruments is determined according to the tracking data comprising time-related data ([0035]-[0036]); the display is a 3D display ([0039]); and a representation of the model data and the representation of a shape, position and/or orientation of the one or more instruments are 3D representations ([0007]).
Regarding claim 52, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 49 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the imaging data is 2D data that is processed to allow for visualization on the 3D display ([0064]).
Regarding claim 53, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 49 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein there is at least a partial overlap between two or more regions ([0064]) and wherein the visualization comprises an overlay of the representation of the data originating from the two or more regions ([0031]).
Regarding claim 54, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 53 above.
Feiner further teaches wherein the overlay is presented aligned on corresponding data or wherein the overlay can be positioned and repositioned during the procedure such as to offer a desired view for a user ([0031]).
Claims 36, 41, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiner, et al., US 20200188028 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 07/24/2025) in view of Wong, et al., US 20240238049 A1, as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Yu, et al., US 20160035108 A1.
Regarding claim 36, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner in view of Wong fails to teach means for receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model, the pose data belonging to a third region, wherein the processing means are adapted for further co-registering pose data, wherein the display is adapted for further visualization of the pose data.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches motion tracking system for dynamic tracking of and compensation for motion of a patient during a magnetic resonance scan comprises a first camera positioned to view an optical marker along a first line of sight; a second camera positioned to view the optical marker along a second line of sight; and a computer system configured to analyze images generated by the first and second cameras to determine changes in position of the optical marker (see abstract). Yu further teaches means for receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model, the pose data belonging to a third region ([0009]), wherein the processing means are adapted for further co-registering pose data, wherein the display is adapted for further visualization of the pose data ([0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Feiner to include means for receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model, the pose data belonging to a third region, wherein the processing means are adapted for further co-registering pose data, wherein the display is adapted for further visualization of the pose data, as taught by Yu, to allow accurate targeting of the tissue of interest ([0005]).
Regarding claim 41, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner in view of Wong fails to teach wherein a system latency is equal to or smaller than 50 ms.
However, Yu further teaches wherein a system latency is equal to or smaller than 50 ms ([0035] discloses that In some embodiments, measurements are updated at a rate of at least 100 solutions per second with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds. In some embodiments, measurements are updated at a rate of at least 200 solutions per second with a latency of less than 10 milliseconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Feiner wherein a system latency is equal to or smaller than 50 ms, as taught by Yu, to allow accurate targeting of the tissue of interest ([0005]).
Regarding claim 50, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 49 above.
Feiner in view of Wong fails to teach receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model, the pose data belonging to a third region, further co-registering pose data, and further visualizing of the pose data.
However, Yu further teaches receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model, the pose data belonging to a third region ([0009]), further co-registering pose data, and further visualizing of the pose data ([0144]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Feiner for receiving pose data of the patient's body or the patient model, the pose data belonging to a third region, further co-registering pose data, and further visualizing of the pose data, as taught by Yu, to allow accurate targeting of the tissue of interest ([0005]).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feiner, et al., US 20200188028 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 07/24/2025) in view of Wong, et al., US 20240238049 A1, as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Abi-Jaoudeh, et al., US 20150150466 A1.
Regarding claim 45, Feiner in view of Wong teaches all the limitations of claim 35 above.
Feiner in view of Wong fail to teach wherein the imaging data is generated in an intermittent manner.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Abi-Jaoudeh teaches computer readable instructions, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: generate and display a thermal map for image data voxels or pixels representing a volume or region of interest of a subject during an interventional procedure based on thermometry image data ([0008]). Abi-Jaoudeh further teaches wherein the imaging data is generated in an intermittent manner ([0019], [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure modified Feiner, wherein the imaging data is generated in an intermittent manner, as taught by Abi-Jaoudeh, as such modification would allow the accurate monitoring of the region of interest during interventional procedures ([0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights