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
Claims 1-15 filed on 04/21/2025 are pending.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent Nos. 12,302,010 and 11,974,053. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are similar to the claims in the U.S patents to meet the limitations of the instant claims. Table 1 shows comparison between the instant claims and the U.S patent claims.
This is a non-provisionally obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in instant Application No. 19/184053 vs. Patent Nos. 12,302,010 and 11,974,053
Appl. 19184053
Appl. 18617036 (US 12,302,010)
Appl. 17684851 (US 11,974,053)
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of computer instructions for imaging a target site with a stereoscopic imaging platform having a stereoscopic camera, the set of computer instructions being executable by a processor and comprising:
generating at least one stereoscopic image of the target site based on a left image and a right image of the target site obtained via the stereoscopic camera, the stereoscopic camera being movable relative to the target site;
wherein the stereoscopic camera includes at least one focus motor and at least one lens, the at least one focus motor being adapted to move the at least one lens to selectively vary a working distance of the stereoscopic camera;
wherein a robotic arm is connected to the stereoscopic camera, the robotic arm being adapted to selectively move the stereoscopic camera relative to the target site;
executing a continuous autofocus mode for maintaining a focus of the at least one stereoscopic image while the robotic arm is moving the stereoscopic camera and the target site is moving along at least an axial direction;
calculating an updated focal length at a current position of the target site based in part on a change in a target depth;
obtaining the change in the target depth based on a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position; and
minimizing the difference between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity, via execution of a closed-loop control module.
1. A method for imaging a target site with a stereoscopic imaging platform having a stereoscopic camera and a controller with a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded, the method comprising:
recording a left image and a right image of the target site, via the stereoscopic camera, to generate at least one stereoscopic image of the target site, the stereoscopic camera being movable relative to the target site;
wherein a lens assembly is incorporated in the stereoscopic camera, the lens assembly having at least one lens and defining a working distance, the lens assembly having at least one focus motor adapted to move the at least one lens to selectively vary the working distance; wherein a robotic arm is connected to the stereoscopic camera, the robotic arm being adapted to selectively move the stereoscopic camera relative to the target site;
executing a continuous autofocus mode for maintaining a focus of the at least one stereoscopic image while the robotic arm is moving the stereoscopic camera and the target site is moving along at least an axial direction;
calculating an updated focal length at a current position of the target site based in part on a change in a target depth;
obtaining the change in the target depth based on a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position;
minimizing the difference between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity, via execution of a closed-loop control module, the closed-loop control module being a proportional-integral-derivative control module defining a proportional constant, an integral constant and a derivative constant; and determining the change in the target depth as
[Kp(Rc-Rt)+Kiʃ(Rc-Rt)dt-Kd*dRc/dt],
where Rc is the current disparity value, Rt is the initial target disparity value, t is time, Kp is the proportional constant, Ki is the integral constant, and Kd is the derivative constant.
1. A stereoscopic imaging platform for imaging a target site, the stereoscopic imaging platform comprising:
a stereoscopic camera configured to record a left image and a right image of the target site for producing at least one stereoscopic image of the target site;
a robotic arm operatively connected to the stereoscopic camera, the robotic arm being adapted to selectively move the stereoscopic camera relative to the target site;
wherein the stereoscopic camera includes a lens assembly having at least one lens and defining a working distance, the lens assembly having at least one focus motor adapted to move the at least one lens to selectively vary the working distance;
a controller in communication with the stereoscopic camera and having a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded;
wherein the controller is adapted to selectively execute a continuous autofocus mode adapted to maintain a focus of the at least one stereoscopic image while the robotic arm is moving the stereoscopic camera and the target site is moving along at least an axial direction;
wherein the controller is adapted to calculate an updated focal length at a current position of the target site based in part on a change in a target depth;
wherein the controller is adapted to obtain the change in the target depth based on a closed-loop control module, and a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position, the controller being adapted to execute the closed-loop control module to minimize the difference between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity; and
the change in the target depth is determined as [Kp(Rc-Rt)+Kiʃ(Rc-Rt)dt-Kd*dRc/dt],
where Rc is the current disparity value, Rt is the initial target disparity value, t is time, Kp is the proportional constant, Ki is the integral constant, and Kd is the derivative constant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 10-12 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan et al. (“Keenan”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0272272 A1] in view of Luna et al. (“Luna”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2019/0327394 A1] in further view of Atanassov et al. (“Atanassov”) [US 2012/0033051 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Keenan meets the claim limitations as follows:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of computer instructions [para. 0034-0035: ‘a computer readable medium containing executable program instructions executed by a processor’] for imaging a target site with a stereoscopic imaging platform having a stereoscopic camera [Fig. 1: a surgical robotic system ‘10’; Fig. 2, 3: stereoscopic camera 44], the set of computer instructions being executable by a processor and comprising:
generating at least one stereoscopic image of the target site based on a left image and a right image of the target site obtained via the stereoscopic camera [Fig. 1, 2: ‘camera assembly 44’; camera 60A, 60B; para. 0044: ‘image data from the camera assembly 44 to the right and left eyes of the surgeon’; Fig. 7, 10: illustrate a target site, e.g. tissue; para. 0047, 0050, 0064: ‘to provide a stereoscopic view or image of the surgical site’; ‘determine from the image data the right and left robot arm centered distance data’], the stereoscopic camera being movable relative to the target site [Fig. 3, 6, 7, 10 show a robot arm connected to the camera and a robot arm movement; para. 0042, 0047, 0054, 0068, 0087, 0090: ‘to control movement of the camera’];
wherein the stereoscopic camera includes at least one focus motor and at least one lens [Fig. 2; para. 0052: ‘including lens and associated optics’], the at least one focus motor being adapted to move the at least one lens to selectively vary a working distance of the stereoscopic camera [Fig. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10: ‘Desired Focus Distance’; para. 0052, 0055-0062: ‘the motor unit 40’; ‘the autofocus unit 62 to change the physical focal distance of the camera’];;
wherein a robotic arm is connected to the stereoscopic camera [Fig. 3, 7, 10 show a robot arm connected to the camera], the robotic arm being adapted to selectively move the stereoscopic camera relative to the target site [Fig. 6, 7, 10 illustrate a robot arm movement; para. 0042, 0047, 0054: ‘to control movement of the camera’];
executing a continuous autofocus mode [para. 0052-0056: ‘an autofocus unit 62 for automatically focusing the lens of the cameras 60A, 60B’] for maintaining a focus of the at least one stereoscopic image [para. 0010, 0052-0056: ‘‘to adjust a physical focal distance of each camera’; ‘to focus on different locations more rapidly’] while the robotic arm is moving the stereoscopic camera [para. 0089: ‘while maintaining the largest range of motion possible for the robotic arms’; Fig. 6, 10-12 show Focal Distance Calculator for distance on the Z-axis based on camera position & orientation and based End-effector position & orientation (i.e. target site rotating) ] and the target site is moving along at least an axial direction [Note: when a camera is moving, the target site is relatively moving];
calculating an updated focal length i.e. ‘calculate a desired focal distance’; ‘automatically adjust the focal point’) [para. 0009-0010, 0059: ‘As the distance between the end effectors and the camera assembly changes, the autofocus unit 62 may automatically adjust the focal point or length of the cameras in response thereto.’] at a current position of the target site based in part on a change in a target depth (i.e. ‘as the distance between the end effectors and the camera assembly changes’);
obtaining the change (i.e. ‘as the distance between the end effectors (or grasper) and the camera assembly changes’) [Fig. 6B, 6C, 11; para. 0059, 0064: ‘automatically adjust the focal point or length of the cameras’ in response to the distance between the end effectors and the camera assembly] in the target depth (i.e. ‘as the distance between the end effectors and the camera assembly) based on a difference between an initial target disparity [Fig. 10A shows an initial disparity between the end effectors’] at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position [Fig. 10B shows a current disparity between the end effectors’]; and
minimizing the difference [Fig. 10B shows a minimum current disparity between the end effectors’ (i.e. the focus to remain close to the target)] between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity, via execution of a closed-loop control module (i.e. ‘A proportional-integral-derivative (PID)’ in light of Specification, para. 0005) [para. 0068-0069: ‘the end effectors move toward a patient’; ‘it is desirable for the focus to remain close to the target’].
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
executing a continuous autofocus mode for maintaining a focus of the at least one stereoscopic image while the robotic arm is moving the stereoscopic camera and the target site is moving along at least an axial direction;
obtaining the change in the target depth based on a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position; and minimizing the difference between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity, via execution of a closed-loop control module.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
executing a continuous autofocus mode for maintaining a focus of the at least one stereoscopic image while the robotic arm is moving the stereoscopic camera [Fig. 33-38: a mechanical arm 506; para. 0086-0087: ‘movement of optical elements’] and the target site is moving [para. 0086-0087: ‘movement of the target site’] along at least an axial direction [para. 0437, 0456: ‘if the robotic arm 506 is moved toward a surgical site, the processor 4102 operates in connection with the robotic arm controller 4106 to change a working distance or focal point by moving one or more of the lenses of the stereoscopic visualization camera 300 to maintain focus’; para. 0582, 0583, 0586: ‘a lock-to-target mode where the working distance and/or focal point is held stationary while enabling an operator to change an orientation of the camera 300’];
obtaining the change in the target depth based on a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position [Fig. 44: change of Z; para. 0483: ‘The parallax can be measured, … by counting a number of pixels of disparity’]; and minimizing the difference [para. 0340: ‘spurious parallax is minimized’] between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity, via execution of a closed-loop control module.
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
obtaining the change in the target depth based on a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position and a current disparity value at the current position and minimizing the difference between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity, via execution of a closed-loop control module.
However in the same field of endeavor Atanassov discloses the deficient claim as follows:
obtaining the change in the target depth [Fig. 3; para. 0037-0038: ‘the object distance 402 increases as well’; ‘displacement in the z’; ‘Objects 502-504 are located at various depths within scene’] based on a difference between an initial target disparity at an initial target position (i.e. ‘An initial negative disparity … those having little depth 402 in the z-direction’) [Fig. 3, 4: the parity at the position 300A; para. 0037-0038] and a current disparity value at the current position [Fig. 3, 4: the parity at the position 306B] and minimizing the difference between the current disparity value and the initial target disparity [Fig. 3, 4, 6: the minimum disparity ‘303’ is 0], via execution of a closed-loop control module.
Keenan, Luna and Atanassov are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan, Luna and Atanassov as motivation to obtain the change in the target depth base on the parity [Atanassov: Fig. 4-6 show pixel parity vs object distance].
Regarding claim 2, Keenan meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the set of computer instructions are executable for: determining a change in height of the stereoscopic camera (i.e. Z-axis in light of Specification, para. 0102) [Figs. 10A-10C show a change in distance to target; Fig. 12: Compute distance of camera from both end effectors ‘74’] from an initial camera position (i.e. ‘A different desired focal distance may also be calculated’) [para. 0011, 0060-0061 disclose ‘Focal Distance” is calculated based on the distance value ZL and ZR; Fig. 6, 10-12 show Left/Right Normal Distance calculator on the Z-axis based on camera position & orientation and based End-effector position & orientation (i.e. target site rotating) ], the change in the height being defined as a displacement in position of the stereoscopic camera along the axial direction [Fig. 10 shows changes in ‘distance to target’; para. 0010, 0012, 0049, 0055, 0059: ‘the state information may include position information’; ‘information associated with the position … of the cameras with the camera assembly’; para. 0437, 0456: ‘if the robotic arm 506 is moved toward a surgical site, the processor 4102 operates in connection with the robotic arm controller 4106 to change a working distance or focal point …’; para. 0068-0069: ‘the end effectors move toward a patient’. Note: Luna, Fig. 7: ‘706’ and para. 0132-0134, also discloses ‘to change a working distance range’].
Regarding claim 3, Keenan meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer readable medium of claim 2, further comprising: defining the change in the target depth as the displacement in position of the target site along the axial direction [Fig. 10 shows changes in ‘distance to target’; para. 0010, 0012, 0049, 0055, 0059: ‘the state information may include position information’; ‘information associated with the position … of the cameras with the camera assembly’; para. 0437, 0456: ‘if the robotic arm 506 is moved toward a surgical site, the processor 4102 operates in connection with the robotic arm controller 4106 to change a working distance or focal point …’; para. 0068-0069: ‘the end effectors move toward a patient’].
Regarding claim 4, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 3.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 3, further comprising: isolating an identifiable region in the left image and a second region in the right image, the second region containing coordinates of the identifiable region and being larger than the identifiable region, via the controller; performing a template match to obtain a pixel offset, the pixel offset being a horizontal displacement of the identifiable region in the left image and the identifiable region in the right image; and obtaining the initial target disparity as the pixel offset at an optimal location of the template match, via the controller.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
isolating an identifiable region in the left image [Figs. 25-32; para. 0352: ‘to determine a position of … the left ZRP’] and a second region in the right image [Figs. 25-32; para. 0352: ‘to determine a position of the right ZRP’], the second region containing coordinates of the identifiable region [Fig. 26: ‘Determine coordinates of the right ZRP 2526’] and being larger than the identifiable region [Fig. 31: the region 2802 is larger than the region 3000; para. 0356-0357], via the controller; performing a template match to obtain a pixel offset [para. 0352, 0356: ‘The template 2802 may be aligned’; ‘to determine if they are aligned or matched’], the pixel offset (i.e. ‘∆x and ∆y’) [para. 0358] being a horizontal displacement of the identifiable region in the left image and the identifiable region in the right image; and obtaining the initial target disparity as the pixel offset at an optimal location of the template match [Figs. 28-32; para. 0352-0360], via the controller.
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Regarding claim 5, Keenan meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising: selecting the closed-loop control module from at least one of a proportional-derivative control module, a proportional-integral control module and a proportional-integral-derivative control module (i.e. ‘A proportional-integral-derivative (PID)’ in light of Specification, para. 0005) [para. 0068-0069: ‘the end effectors move toward a patient’].
Regarding claim 6, Keenan meets the claim limitations as follows:
The computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising: selecting the closed-loop control module to be a proportional-integral-derivative control module (i.e. ‘A proportional-integral-derivative (PID)’ in light of Specification, para. 0005) [para. 0068-0069: ‘A … (PID) control with highly weighted I/D terms’] defining a proportional constant, an integral constant (i.e. ‘highly weighted I/D term’) and a derivative constant (i.e. ‘highly weighted I/D term’) [para. 0068-0069].
Regarding claim 10, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising: calculating motor commands for the at least one focus motor corresponding to the updated focal length; and transmitting the motor commands to the at least one focus motor such that the working distance corresponds to the updated focal length.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
calculating motor commands (i.e. ‘generate commands for changing focus’) for the at least one focus motor corresponding to the updated focal length [para.0255, 0260, 0429, 0529: ‘instructions into messages for the motor’; ‘instructions may include requests to change optical aspects of the stereoscopic visualization camera 300 including … a working distance …’; ‘ including indications of an image being in focus’]; and transmitting the motor commands to the at least one focus motor such that the working distance corresponds to the updated focal length [para.0255, 0260, 0429, 0529].
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Regarding claim 11, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising: determining motor commands for the at least one focus motor corresponding to a maximum sharpness position when movement of the robotic arm is no longer detected, the maximum sharpness position being based on one or more sharpness parameters, including a sharpness signal, a maximum sharpness signal and a derivative over time of the maximum sharpness.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: determining motor commands for the at least one focus motor corresponding to a maximum sharpness position [para. 0373: ‘The processor 1562 adjusts a focus of the optical elements 1402 while monitoring for a maximum signal indicative of a sharp image’] when movement of the robotic arm is no longer detected, the maximum sharpness position being based on one or more sharpness parameters, including a sharpness signal, a maximum sharpness signal and a derivative over time of the maximum sharpness [para. 0373: ‘a “sharpness” signal’].
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Regarding claim 12, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 11, further comprising: defining the maximum sharpness position as a first position, the derivative of the maximum sharpness reaching a maximum at the first position, the derivative of the maximum sharpness moving from the first position and settling at approximately zero at a second position.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: defining the maximum sharpness position as a first position [para. 0373: ‘The processor 1562 adjusts a focus of the optical elements 1402 while monitoring for a maximum signal indicative of a sharp image’], the derivative of the maximum sharpness reaching a maximum at the first position [para. 0373: ‘The processor 1562 adjusts a focus of the optical elements 1402 while monitoring for a maximum signal indicative of a sharp image’], the derivative of the maximum sharpness moving from the first position and settling at approximately zero at a second position (i.e. ‘a zero-point’) [para. 0232: ‘The processor 1522 may designate this stop position as a zero-point for the encoder of the motor 1554’].
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Regarding claim 15, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 11, further comprising: commanding the focus motor to the maximum sharpness position when movement of the robotic arm is no longer detected, via the controller.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: commanding the focus motor to the maximum sharpness position [para. 0373: ‘The processor 1562 adjusts a focus of the optical elements 1402 while monitoring for a maximum signal indicative of a sharp image’; a “sharpness” signal’] when movement of the robotic arm is no longer detected, via the controller.
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Claims 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan et al. (“Keenan”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0272272 A1] in view of Luna et al. (“Luna”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2019/0327394 A1] in further view of Atanassov et al. (“Atanassov”) [US 2012/0033051 A1] in further view of Hattori et al. (“Hattori”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2019/0089886 A1]
Regarding claim 8, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining the updated focal length F as a function of a first variable Zbase, a second variable z0 and a third variable z3 such that: F = (Zbase – z0)/z3, wherein the first variable Zbase is a respective axial component of a current location of the target site in a robotic base frame, wherein the robotic base frame is transformable to a camera coordinate frame via a homogenous transformation matrix.
However in the same field of endeavor Hattori discloses the deficient claim as follows:
obtaining the updated focal length F (i.e. fu and fv) [para. 0121-0122; Eq. (1)] as a function of a first variable Zbase [para. 0121-0122: ‘the point existing at the coordinates (x, y, z, 1)’; Eq. (1)], a second variable z0 and a third variable z3 such that: F = (Zbase – z0)/z3, wherein the first variable Zbase is a respective axial component of a current location of the target site in a robotic base frame [para. 0121-0122: ‘the coordinates (u, v, 1)’; Eq. (1)], wherein the robotic base frame is transformable to a camera coordinate frame via a homogenous transformation matrix [para. 0121-0122: ‘ti’ and ‘rij’; Eq. (1)].
Keenan, Luna, Atanassov and Hattori are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan, Luna, Atanassov and Hattori as motivation to calculate focal length using rotation and translation matrices.
Regarding claim 9, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 8.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 8, further comprising: composing the homogenous transformation matrix with a rotational matrix and a translation vector, wherein the second variable z0 is the respective axial component of the translation vector and the third variable z3 is the respective axial component of a column of the rotational matrix.
However in the same field of endeavor Hattori discloses the deficient claim as follows:
composing the homogenous transformation matrix with a rotational matrix [para. 0121-0122: ‘rij’; Eq. (1)] and a translation vector [para. 0121-0122: ‘ti’; Eq. (1)], wherein the second variable z0 is the respective axial component of the translation vector and the third variable z3 is the respective axial component of a column of the rotational matrix [para. 0121-0122: ‘the coordinates (u, v, 1)’; ‘ti’ and ‘rij’; Eq. (1)]
Keenan, Luna, Atanassov and Hattori are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan, Luna, Atanassov and Hattori as motivation to calculate focal length using rotation and translation matrices.
Claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan et al. (“Keenan”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0272272 A1] in view of Luna et al. (“Luna”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2019/0327394 A1] ] in further view of Atanassov et al. (“Atanassov”) [US 2012/0033051 A1] in further view of Knorr et al. (“Knorr”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2018/0176483 A1]
Regarding claim 13, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 10.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 10, further comprising: defining the sharpness signal as a contrast between respective edges of an object in the at least one stereoscopic image; and defining the maximum sharpness signal as a largest sharpness value observed during a scan period.
However in the same field of endeavor Luna discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: defining the sharpness signal as a contrast between respective edges of an object in the at least one stereoscopic image [para. 0373: ‘an edge detection’]; and defining the maximum sharpness signal as a largest sharpness value observed during a scan period [para. 0373: ‘The processor 1562 adjusts a focus of the optical elements 1402 while monitoring for a maximum signal indicative of a sharp image’].
Keenan and Luna are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan and Luna as motivation to include a lock-to-target mode to facilitate microsurgery visualization [Luna: para. 0005-0007].
Keenan or Luna does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
further comprising: defining the sharpness signal as a contrast between respective edges of an object in the at least one stereoscopic image [para. 0373: ‘an edge detection’]; and defining the maximum sharpness signal as a largest sharpness value observed during a scan period.
However in the same field of endeavor Knorr discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: defining the sharpness signal as a contrast between respective edges of an object [para. 0003, 0164, 0209, 0346-0349: ‘The sharpness in a region of the image may be determined based on the (local) contrast in the region of the image’] in the at least one stereoscopic image; and defining the maximum sharpness signal as a largest sharpness value observed during a scan period [para. 0158: disclosing ‘properties on the desired appearance of the real environment .. in an image’].
Keenan, Luna and Knorr are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan, Luna and Knorr as motivation to include edge detection as a contrast between respective edges of an object for camera pose determination in Augmented Reality application [Knorr: para. 0003].
Regarding claim 14, Keenan meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 11.
Keenan does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The computer readable medium of claim 11, further comprising: obtaining the sharpness signal by calculating a variance of a Laplacian of a Gaussian Blur of one or more image frames in the at least one stereoscopic image.
However in the same field of endeavor Knorr discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising: obtaining the sharpness signal by calculating a variance of a Laplacian of a Gaussian Blur of one or more image frames in the at least one stereoscopic image [para. 0322, 0351, 0370: ‘to detect features in an image … not limited to local extrema of Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG)’; ‘the principle component analysis with mean and variances for at least one of face specific characteristics’].
Keenan, Luna and Knorr are combinable because they are from the same field of stereoscopic vision.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Keenan, Luna and Knorr as motivation to include edge detection as a contrast between respective edges of an object for camera pose determination in Augmented Reality application [Knorr: para. 0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 7, it is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights