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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendments, filed April 29, 2026 are respectfully acknowledged and have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed April 29, 2026 and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12 are amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim Objections
The amendments to Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, and 12 are respectfully acknowledged, and the objections to Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, and 12 are withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210192759 A1) in view of Flaks et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120092328 A1, hereinafter “Flaks”) and further in view of Sako et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190035339 A1, hereinafter “Sako”).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Lang teaches an augmented reality (AR) headset (par 0217 Fig 1 OHMD 11 worn by a surgeon) comprising:
an AR transmitter configured to project light for an AR image (par 0179 e.g. Fig 44A [AR] images are projected onto the combiner, i.e. a projector/AR transmitter is implicit; e.g. Hololens comprises a light engine projector above the lenses [https://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/]);
a see-through display screen configured to combine the projected AR image and a real-world scene for viewing by the user (par 0005 Fig 1 displaying at least a portion of the first virtual implant component, a portion of the second virtual implant component or a combination thereof, using a see through optical head mounted display, so as to superimpose at least a portion of the first virtual implant component onto a first articular surface of the physical joint of the patient [real-world scene] visible directly through the see through optical head mounted display; par 0217 the superimposed AR images are projected into the view of the [user's] right and left eyes); and
an opacity filter configured to be positioned between at least one of the user's eyes and the real-world scene while the user is wearing the AR headset to view the see-through display screen, wherein the opacity filter is configured to provide opaqueness to light from the real-world scene (par 1294 Fig 1 the OHMD may have variable transparency using filters such as an electronic LCD in front of the OHMD [positioned between at least one of the user's eyes and the real-world scene while the user is wearing the AR headset to view the see-through display screen], to decrease transparency [i.e. increase opaqueness to light from the real-world scene]) and comprises:
a first
wherein the first, second and third laterally extending regions are horizontally extending bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each having varying opacity levels.
However, Lang appears not to expressly teach
a first laterally extending region having a first opacity;
a second laterally extending region located immediately below the first laterally extending region and having a second opacity; and
a third laterally extending region located immediately below the second laterally extending region and having a third opacity, wherein each of the first laterally extending portion, the second laterally extending portion, and the third laterally extending portion are configured to be controlled by an AR headset controller,
wherein the first, second and third laterally extending regions are horizontally extending bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each having varying opacity levels.
Flaks teaches
a first laterally extending region having a first opacity (e.g. par 0050 the opacity filter is based on the shape of the virtual image; Fig 2C suggests at least one laterally extending band, a dolphin-shaped band of higher opacity);
a second laterally extending region located immediately below the first laterally extending region and having a second opacity (par 0049 see annotated Fig 2 below pixels just outside the perimeter of the virtual image can provide a fade (e.g., a gradual transition in opacity) from the darkness inside the perimeter [to transparency outside the perimeter]; such suggests that there may be a band of pixels, just below the very opaque dolphin band, that has a second lower opacity than the dolphin area); and
a third laterally extending region located immediately below the second laterally extending region and having a third opacity (par 0049 see annotated Fig 2 below pixels just outside the perimeter of the virtual image can provide a fade (e.g., a gradual transition in opacity) from the darkness inside the perimeter [to transparency outside the perimeter]; such suggests that there may be a band of pixels, just below the second lower opacity band, that has a third lower opacity than the second lower opacity band), wherein each of the first laterally extending portion, the second laterally extending portion, and the third laterally extending portion are configured to be controlled by an AR headset controller (par 0057 Fig 3 AR each different opacity region is configured to be controlled by an AR headset opacity controller under overall control by AR headset processor 210).
Lang and Flaks are analogous art as they each pertain to see-through head mounted displays. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang with the inclusion of the band-shaped opacity filter comprising multiple laterally extending regions of differing opacity of Flaks. The motivation would have been in order to provide a fade just outside the perimeter of the virtual image to smooth the combined image (Flaks par 0049).
Sako teaches at least a similar head up display arrangement (par 0165 Fig 9)
wherein the first, second and third laterally extending regions are horizontally extending bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each having varying opacity levels (par 0068 Fig 9 the opacity filter/dimming element generates three horizontally extending bands LD/y4, LD/y3, LD/y2 arranged in the vertical direction, the bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each band having varying opacity levels - the dimming areas LD can individually control the transmittance of the light guided by the light guide plate LA and thus the opacity of each band LD/y4, LD/y3, LD/y2 may have differing and varying opacity levels).
Lang Flaks and Sako are analogous art as they each pertain to displays with opacity control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang/Flaks with the inclusion of the band-shaped opacity filter comprising multiple laterally extending full-display-width regions of differing opacity of Sako. The motivation would have been in order to provide a gradual change in transmittance vertically across the display (Sako par 0089).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 (Currently Amended), Lang as modified teaches the AR headset of claim 1, wherein
the AR headset is configured to be operationally coupled (Lang par 0211 movements [gestures] of hands may be measured [sensed] by sensors [in the OHMD] which may be coupled with a robot) to a robotic system having a robotic arm (Lang par 0223 in a robot assisted procedure with haptic feedback from the robot, the surgeon can use his or her hands in controlling the direction of a surgical instrument; user motion captured by an IMU [or other sensor] and translated into a forward movement of a robotic arm holding a surgical instrument along the direction of the surgical instrument), the robotic system being controllable based on hand gesture commands (Lang par 0915 any combination of finger and hand gestures is possible and different finger and hand gestures can be used to execute different commands) that is sensed by the AR headset (Lang par 0239 the surgeon's hands or fingers may be imaged using a video or image capture system integrated into the OHMD [headset]).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Lang as modified teaches the AR headset of claim 1, wherein
the AR headset controller is configured to control an opacity of a defined area positioned to align with a virtual reality object displayed on the see-through display screen to reduce real-world light passing through the virtual reality object, increasing the virtual reality object's contrast viewability (Flaks e.g. par 0050 the opacity filter is based on the shape of the virtual image; Fig 2C suggests at least one laterally extending band, a dolphin-shaped band of higher opacity; par 0049 Fig 2B,2C pixels behind the virtual image are darkened so that light from a corresponding portion of the real world scene is blocked from reaching the user's eyes. This allows the virtual image to be realistic and represent a full range of colors and intensities).
Lang Sako and Flaks are analogous art as they each pertain to displays with opacity control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang/Sako with the inclusion of the opacity of a defined area being positioned to align with a virtual reality object displayed on the see-through display of Flaks. The motivation would have been in order to allow the virtual image to be realistic and represent a full range of colors and intensities (Flaks par 0049).
Regarding Claim 4 (Currently Amended), Lang as modified teaches the AR headset of claim 1, wherein
the first opacity is greater than the second opacity (Flaks par 0049 see annotated Fig 2 below pixels just outside the perimeter of the virtual image can provide a fade (e.g., a gradual transition in opacity) from the darkness inside the perimeter [to transparency outside the perimeter]; such suggests that there may be a band of pixels, just below the very opaque dolphin band, that has a second lower opacity than the dolphin area), and the second opacity is greater than the
Lang Sako and Flaks are analogous art as they each pertain to displays with opacity control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang/Sako with the inclusion of the band-shaped opacity filter comprising multiple laterally extending regions of differing opacity of Flaks. The motivation would have been in order to provide a fade just outside the perimeter of the virtual image to smooth the combined image (Flaks par 0049).
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Lang as modified teaches the AR headset of claim 1, wherein
the AR headset controller is configured to:
communicate with a navigation controller by receiving navigation information from the navigation controller which provides visual guidance to the user during a surgical procedure (Lang par 0217 Fig 1 e.g. portion of OHMD 11 [headset processor par 0179] executing instructions for the headset to project/display virtual data into the OHMD's view accounting for its respective view angle or perspective; the displayed virtual data including navigation/surgical guidance data from portion of OHMD 11 [headset processor par 0179 or computer par 0157] executing instructions for the headset to determine, e.g., a next predetermined bone cut); and
generate an AR image based on the navigation information for display on the see-through display screen (Lang par 0217 e.g. portion of OHMD 11 executing instructions for the headset to project/display the provided navigation/surgical guidance virtual data into the OHMD's view, accounting for its respective view angle or perspective, and aligned with the surgical site in a predetermined position and/or orientation).
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Lang as modified teaches the AR headset of claim 1, wherein
the see-through display screen includes a combiner configured to combine light of the AR images projected from the AR emitter and light from a real-world scene into a combined image viewable by the user (Lang par 0005 Fig 1 displaying at least a portion of the first virtual implant component, a portion of the second virtual implant component or a combination thereof, using a see through optical head mounted display, so as to superimpose at least a portion of the first virtual implant component onto a first articular surface of the physical joint of the patient [real-world scene] visible directly through the see through optical head mounted display; par 0217 the superimposed AR images are projected into the view of the [user's] right and left eyes), and wherein
the opacity filter is on a surface of the combiner (Flaks par 0039 Fig. 2 opacity filter 114 is on a surface of curved lens 116).
Lang Sako and Flaks are analogous art as they each pertain to displays with opacity control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang/Sako with the inclusion of the opacity filter on a surface of the combiner of Flaks. The motivation would have been in order to mask out real world light at positions where virtual objects are displayed to provide more crisp virtual image display (Flaks par 0049).
Regarding Claim 7 (Currently Amended), Lang teaches a surgical system (par 0217 Fig 1 surgical system 10) comprising:
an augmented reality (AR) headset configured to be worn by a user during a surgical procedure (par 0217 Fig 1 OHMD 11 worn by a surgeon), the AR headset comprising:
an AR transmitter configured to project light for an AR image (par 0179 e.g. Fig 44A [AR] images are projected onto the combiner, i.e. a projector/AR transmitter is implicit; e.g. Hololens comprises a light engine projector above the lenses [https://www.wired.com/2015/01/microsoft-nadella/]);
a see-through display screen configured to combine the projected AR image and a real-world scene for viewing by the user (par 0005 Fig 1 displaying at least a portion of the first virtual implant component, a portion of the second virtual implant component or a combination thereof, using a see through optical head mounted display, so as to superimpose at least a portion of the first virtual implant component onto a first articular surface of the physical joint of the patient [real-world scene] visible directly through the see through optical head mounted display; par 0217 the superimposed AR images are projected into the view of the [user's] right and left eyes); and
an opacity filter configured to be positioned between at least one of the user's eyes and the real-world scene while the user is wearing the AR headset to view the see-through display screen, wherein the opacity filter is configured to provide opaqueness to light from the real-world scene (par 1294 Fig 1 the OHMD may have variable transparency using filters such as an electronic LCD in front of the OHMD [positioned between at least one of the user's eyes and the real-world scene while the user is wearing the AR headset to view the see-through display screen], to decrease transparency [i.e. increase opaqueness to light from the real-world scene]) and comprises:
a first
wherein the first, second and third laterally extending regions are horizontally extending bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each having varying opacity levels.
However, Lang appears not to expressly teach
a first laterally extending region having a first opacity;
a second laterally extending region located immediately below the first laterally extending region and having a second opacity; and
a third laterally extending region located immediately below the second laterally extending region and having a third opacity, wherein each of the first laterally extending portion, the second laterally extending portion, and the third laterally extending portion are configured to be controlled by an AR headset controller,
wherein the first, second and third laterally extending regions are horizontally extending bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each having varying opacity levels.
Flaks teaches
a first laterally extending region having a first opacity (e.g. par 0050 the opacity filter is based on the shape of the virtual image; Fig 2C suggests at least one laterally extending band, a dolphin-shaped band of higher opacity);
a second laterally extending region located immediately below the first laterally extending region and having a second opacity (par 0049 see annotated Fig 2 above pixels just outside the perimeter of the virtual image can provide a fade (e.g., a gradual transition in opacity) from the darkness inside the perimeter [to transparency outside the perimeter]; such suggests that there may be a band of pixels, just below the very opaque dolphin band, that has a second lower opacity than the dolphin area); and
a third laterally extending region located immediately below the second laterally extending region and having a third opacity (par 0049 see annotated Fig 2 above pixels just outside the perimeter of the virtual image can provide a fade (e.g., a gradual transition in opacity) from the darkness inside the perimeter [to transparency outside the perimeter]; such suggests that there may be a band of pixels, just below the second lower opacity band, that has a third lower opacity than the second lower opacity band), wherein each of the first laterally extending portion, the second laterally extending portion, and the third laterally extending portion are configured to be controlled by an AR headset controller (par 0057 Fig 3 AR each different opacity region is configured to be controlled by an AR headset opacity controller under overall control by AR headset processor 210).
Lang and Flaks are analogous art as they each pertain to see-through head mounted displays. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang with the inclusion of the band-shaped opacity filter comprising multiple laterally extending regions of differing opacity of Flaks. The motivation would have been in order to provide a fade just outside the perimeter of the virtual image to smooth the combined image (Flaks par 0049).
Sako teaches at least a similar head up display arrangement (par 0165 Fig 9)
wherein the first, second and third laterally extending regions are horizontally extending bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each having varying opacity levels (par 0068 Fig 9 the opacity filter/dimming element generates three horizontally extending bands LD/y4, LD/y3, LD/y2 arranged in the vertical direction, the bands extending across the entire width of the see-through display and each band having varying opacity levels - the dimming areas LD can individually control the transmittance of the light guided by the light guide plate LA and thus the opacity of each band LD/y4, LD/y3, LD/y2 may have differing and varying opacity levels).
Lang Flaks and Sako are analogous art as they each pertain to displays with opacity control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surgical system of Lang/Flaks with the inclusion of the band-shaped opacity filter comprising multiple laterally extending full-display-width regions of differing opacity of Sako. The motivation would have been in order to provide a gradual change in transmittance vertically across the display (Sako par 0089).
Claim 8 presents the limitations of Claim 2 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 8 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 2, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 9 presents the limitations of Claim 3 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 9 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 3, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 10 presents the limitations of Claim 4 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 10 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 4, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 11 presents the limitations of Claim5 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 11 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 5, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 12 presents the limitations of Claim 6 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 12 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-272-7772. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights