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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9-13, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims.
Claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, and 20 of the patent are anticipated by patent claims 1-6, 9-13, 18, and 19, in that claims 1-6, 9-13, 18, and 19 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, and 20 of the instant application. Claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 19, and 20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for anticipatory-type double patenting.
Instant Application 19/176,027
U.S. Patent 12,307,581
2. A system comprising: an elongate device;
1. A system, comprising: an elongate device;
a display system;
a display system;
one or more processors; and
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a pose, within a workspace, of at least one of: a distal portion of the elongate device, or an instrument extendable from the distal portion of the elongate device;
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a pose, within a workspace, of at least one of: a distal portion of the elongate device, or an instrument extendable from the distal portion of the elongate device;
load a reference pose corresponding to at least one of: a previous pose of the distal portion of the elongate device, or a previous pose of the instrument;
acquire a reference pose of the at least one of: the distal portion of the elongate device, or the instrument;
generate a first visual representation corresponding to the reference pose;
generate an elongate device reference corresponding to the reference pose;
generate an image of the workspace from a perspective of the elongate device; and
generate an image of the workspace from a perspective of a point located behind the distal portion of the elongate device; and
display, on the display system and on the image of the workspace: the first visual representation at the reference pose; and the distal portion of the elongate device or a distal portion of the instrument.
display, on the display system and on the image of the workspace, the elongate device reference at the reference pose and the distal portion of the elongate device.
The above table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application and the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,307,581. The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between the claims of the instant application to U.S. Patent 12,307,581.
Claims of Instant Application
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
15
16
19
20
Claims of U.S. Patent 12,307,581
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
9
10
11
12
13
12, 1, 10
18
19
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,581 in view of Classen (US 8,085,269 B1). Regarding claims 10 and 17, the patent claims describe the claimed limitation except for wherein the second visual representation is visually distinct from the first visual representation by at least one of color, shading, or labeling. Classen discloses objects can be displayed to be visually distinct by using different colors (Column 8, lines 15-31). Classen’s technique of using different colors for objects to make them visually distinct would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the visual representations of the patent and the results would have been predictable in the making the visual representations visually distinct by displaying the visual representations with different colors. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13, 18, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,581 in view of Namer Yelin et al. (US 2012/0197619 A1). Regarding claims 13, 18, and 21 the patent claims describe the claimed limitation except for wherein the metadata associated with the reference pose comprises one or more of an identifier of the reference pose, a timestamp of the reference pose, an operator associated with the reference pose, an instrument associated with the reference pose, or a description of the reference pose. Namer Yelin discloses suggestion of instruments during an image guided procedure based on metadata (Paragraph 0040). Namer Yelin’s technique of suggesting instruments based on metadata would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the display of metadata of the patent and the results would have been predictable in the display metadata that suggests different instruments to use during an image guided procedure. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hale et al. (US 9,615,772 B2) discloses a virtual representation of an endoscopic environment and endoscope based on images obtained from the endoscope.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights