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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, applicant argues that Mark’s paragraph [0140] discloses cautery instrument is something different than outer sheath and thus, is not the object for which a location is being determined in cited paragraph [0072] (pages 6-7), and concludes that Mark does not anticipate “Tracking movement of a cautery tool “ as in claim 1.
Secondly, applicant argues that Mark does not teach “displaying a visualization of a pathway to be followed by the cautery tool, the pathway corresponding to a plan for tissue resection with the cautery tool” because cited [0128] and figure 14B’s trajectory T is not the claimed pathway to be followed by the cautery tool given that the cautery tool is different than the surgical access assembly as discussed above (page 7).
Lastly, applicant argues that Mark does not anticipate “updating the visualization based on the movement of the cautery tool” since Mark is cited for updates associated with movement of Mark’s access device (page 7), as cited paragraph [0121] discloses tip of the obturator and [0092] for location of obturator and cited prior art are about navigating the obturator and relate to placing the outer sheath, thus, does not disclose updating the visualization based on the movement of the cautery tool as claimed (page 7).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner submits that currently pending claim recites “tracking movement of a cautery tool” that ca be read on looking and observing a movement of a cautery tool by a surgeon. Accordingly, Mark teaches image navigation and guidance of surgical procedure, that uses images to track and plan, and update the procedure, namely, resection procedure which uses a cautery tool. In addition, with regards to tracking a cautery device, the examiner submits that tracking can be performed by a surgeon’s eye following the movement of the tool since claim does not recite any further limitations requiring use of image or sensor.
With regards to a visualization of a pathway, which is currently claimed without further limitations of “visual or graphical indicators (such as a line drawn in the image). Thus, observing a target in the image, by a surgeon, reads on “visualization of a pathway to be followed by the tool.”
Thus, Mark’s teaching reads on the claimed limitation as Mark teaches a plan for the operative trajectory is developed, a pathway is planned [0115], Figure 14B surgical access is directed along a trajectory T that extends through area of interest [0128], and imaging mechanism enables surgeon to have real-time information, resection procedure [0070].
The examiner further notes that purpose of outer sheath is for accessing surgical instrument including a cautery instrument to guide to a target to perform surgery ([0159]). Thus, tracking distal tip of the outer sheath allows positioning of the tools including a cautery instrument, to permit the surgeon to cauterize vessels ([0159]). Thus, tracking outer sheath would include positioning of the tool (Cautery tool as claimed) to be navigated/tracked with the outer sheath to reach the target region for procedure ([0072] and [0159]). Paragraph [0129] clearly discloses real-time information of the area for procedure along with surgical access assembly (Which would include cautery tool) until the assembly is positioned at area of interest.
Regarding to claim 2, applicant argue that Mark does not disclose tracking a cautery tool and combination of Quaid, III and Mark does not reach the claimed invention (page 8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth for claim 1, tracking a cautery device can be performed by simply observing cautery tool (included in the obturator which is physically tracked and imaged) and Mark can incorporate teaching of optical tracking disclosed by Quaid III (optically tracking instruments with markers, using a stereo camera pair [0004] and [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tracking as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Quaid, III, since optical tracking using a stereo camera pair was well known in the art as taught by Quaid, III. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, using stereo camera pair for optical tracking of markers, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide optical tracking of area of interest and sensitive to infrared radiation ([0039]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 4, applicant argues that Mark does not suggest using a cautery tool to resect the tissue along the line. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to claim 4, the examiner previously has stated as follows:
Of claim 4, comprising resecting tissue along the pathway by the cautery tool ([0140], [0159], and [0163]).
Paragraph [0140] discloses examples of surgical devices including cautery instrument to be inserted through outer sheath to perform surgery.
Paragraph [0159] teaches monitoring outer sheath which includes surgical instruments, cautery instrument to be inserted into outer sheath, permitting surgeon to cauterize vessels during the procedure.
Paragraph [0163] teaches cautery instrument at the distal tip of the delivery sleeve (Figure 20), and explicitly discloses that optical device is supported within the delivery sleeve, which in turn, is connected to the surgical device, the surgeon can monitor tissue, and resect tissue using the cautery instrument, thus reads on resecting the tissue along the pathway by the cautery tool.
Therefore, rejection is proper and maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Mark et al.,” US Application 13/444,732 (US 2013/0102886, hereinafter Mark).
Regarding to claim 1, Mark teaches a method, comprising:
tracking movement of a cautery tool (tracked by a navigation system [0072]; cautery instruments [0140])
displaying a visualization of a pathway to be followed by the cautery tool (projecting an image of the tool onto a display of images of the patient’s brain [0123]), the pathway corresponding to a plan for tissue resection with the cautery tool (a plan for the operative trajectory is developed, a pathway is planned [0115]; Figure 14B surgical access is directed along a trajectory T that extends through area of interest [0128]; imaging mechanism enables surgeon to have real-time information, resection procedure [0070]); and
updating the visualization based on the movement of the cautery tool (real-time information concerning fiber tract in trajectory T [0129], viewing member permit the surgeon to observe in real-time surrounding tissue [0092] and a dotted line appear on the screen indicating where distal tip of obturator is located in real-time [0121]).
Regarding to claim 4, Mark teaches all limitations of claim 1 set forth above.
Mark further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 4, comprising resecting tissue along the pathway by the cautery tool ([0140], [0159], and [0163]).
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.
Claims 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Quaid, III,” US 2010/0137882 (hereinafter Quaid, III).
Regarding to claim 2, Mark teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mark does not further teach wherein tracking the movement of the cautery tool comprises optically tracking, by a stereo camera pair, a plurality of markers coupled to the cautery tool.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in image guidance of medical instruments, Quaid, III teaches optically tracking instruments with markers, using a stereo camera pair ([0004] and [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tracking as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Quaid, III, since optical tracking using a stereo camera pair was well known in the art as taught by Quaid, III. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, using stereo camera pair for optical tracking of markers, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide optical tracking of area of interest and sensitive to infrared radiation ([0039]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 7, Mark teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mark does not further teach wherein displaying the pathway comprises displaying a model of an anatomical structure of a patient and displaying the pathway relative to the model.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in image guided navigation of medical procedures, Quaid, III teaches a computer aided surgery that guide an instrument using 3-D model of anatomical features, with position and orientation of trajectories and manipulating position and/or orientation of resections ([0061], virtual pathway guides tool from an initial position toward a target area and a desired pose relative to anatomy of the patient, guiding surgical tool to the target area along a path or trajectory [0074]; [0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Quaid, III, since model of anatomical feature was well known in the art as taught by Quaid, III. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, reconstructing three-dimensional image models of anatomical features and displaying instrument relative to the anatomical feature, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide three dimensional position of instrument relative to the anatomy ([0110]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 8, Mark and Quaid, III together teach all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above.
Mark further teaches updating a visualization of the model based on completed stages of the tissue resection by the cautery tool (real-time information about the location, after placement of outer sheath and during resection procedure [0070]; once resection has been completed, process proceeds to next step of decision to remove outer sheath or leave outer sheath in place [0165], after initial resection has been completed, a second stage treatment [0185]).
Regarding to claim 9, Mark and Quaid, III together teach all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above.
Quaid, III further teaches further comprising displaying a position of the cautery tool relative to the pathway ( guiding surgical tool to the target area along a path or trajectory [0074]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Quaid, III,” US 2010/0137882 (hereinafter Quaid, III) and “Conte et al.,” US 2007/0293869 (hereinafter Conte).
Regarding to claim 3, Mark teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mark does not further teach wherein tracking the movement of the cautery tool comprises optically tracking, by a stereo camera pair, a plurality of markers coupled to the cautery tool.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in image guidance of medical instruments, Quaid, III teaches optically tracking instruments with markers, using a stereo camera pair ([0004] and [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tracking as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Quaid, III, since optical tracking using a stereo camera pair was well known in the art as taught by Quaid, III. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, using stereo camera pair for optical tracking of markers, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide optical tracking of area of interest and sensitive to infrared radiation ([0039]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Mark and Quaid, III do not explicitly disclose tracking a modular attachment coupled to the tool.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in optically tracking instruments, Conte teaches a modular alignment system attached to the body of the instrument for optical tracker ([0014] and [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify optical markers as taught by Quaid, III to incorporate teaching of Conte, since modular attachment of markers to the instrument was well known in the art as taught by Conte. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark and Quaid, III with no change in their respective functions, configuring module for attaching optical tracker to the instrument for tracking, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide properly positioning optical tracker ([0014]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of “Hamel,” US 2005/0251228 (hereinafter Hamel).
Regarding to claims 5- 6, Mark teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 4 as set forth above.
Mark does not further disclose following limitations:
Of claim 5, comprising activating, by the cautery tool, in response to manipulation of an activation button of the cautery tool.
Of claim 6, wherein the cautery tool is an electrocautery device.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in cautery tool, Hamel teaches a cauterization device comprising following limitations:
Of claim 5, comprising activating, by the cautery tool, in response to manipulation of an activation button of the cautery tool (button activating cautery unit [0065] and [0070]).
Of claim 6, wherein the cautery tool is an electrocautery device (electrocautery tool [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cautery tool as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Hamel, since electrocautery device with activation button was well known in the art as taught by Hamel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring the cautery device to be electrocautery with activation button, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide electrically activated cautery unit and providing means to activate, adjust various modes and settings of the tools ([0004] and [0065]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Giordano et al,” US 2006/0257379 (hereinafter Giordano).
Regarding to claim 10-11, Mark teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mark does not further teaches controlling power to the cautery tool by comparing the movement of the cautery tool to the pathway.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in guiding instrument during medical procedure, Giordano teaches navigating a movement of a cutting tool ([0079]), controlling power to the tool by comparing the movement of the tool to the pathway, wherein controlling the power to the cautery tool by comparing the movement of the cautery tool to the pathway comprises ceasing power to the cautery tool in response to a position of the cautery tool deviating from the pathway by greater than a threshold amount (electrically operable tool, a supply of energy to the cutting tool can be interrupted immediately, thus cutting process can be stopped if the actual cutting path deviates from the desired contour (comparison has to be performed to determine deviation occurred) [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify navigating tool as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Giordano, since controlling power to the tool based on the positional deviation from the trajectory was well known in the art as taught by Giordano. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring and programming to control the power to the tool based on a positional relationship to desired path, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide control of power to the tool based on the positional deviation from desired path ([0080]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Kimura et al,” US 2011/0196202 (hereinafter Kimura).
Regarding to claim 12, Mark teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Mark does not displaying an upcoming portion of the pathway in a flashing or pulsing manner.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in guiding instruments, Kimura teaches the trajectory information of a section from the current position to the target position of the device with flashing or display color changing on a display ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify displaying planned path/trajectory as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Kimura, since flashing or display color changing on a display was well known in the art as taught by Kimura. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring to display portion of the trajectory to be flashing manner, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to visually presenting trajectory information to user ([0107]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mark et al.,” US 2013/0102886 (hereinafter Mark) and “Zhao et al.,” US 2009/0088634 (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding to claim 13, Mark teaches a system, comprising:
a cautery tool (cautery instrument [0140]);
a tracking system configured to track movement of the cautery tool (tracked by a navigation system [0072])
a display (display images [0123]); and
cause the display screen to display a visualization of a pathway to be followed by the cautery tool, the pathway corresponding to a plan for tissue resection with the cautery tool (a plan for the operative trajectory is developed, a pathway is planned [0115]; Figure 14B surgical access is directed along a trajectory T that extends through area of interest [0128]; imaging mechanism enables surgeon to have real-time information, resection procedure [0070]); and
update the visualization based on the movement of the cautery tool (real-time information concerning fiber tract in trajectory T [0129], viewing member permit the surgeon to observe in real-time surrounding tissue [0092] and a dotted line appear on the screen indicating where distal tip of obturator is located in real-time [0121]).
Mark does not explicitly teach a display screen and a control system programmed to perform the limitations set forth above.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in tracking tool, Zhao teaches tool tracking wherein a control console include the computer for controlling and displaying instruments in the surgical sites in a display screen ([0052], [0213], and [0215]; [0219]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify displaying and updating visualization as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Zhao, since a display device and a control system programmed to perform the function was well known in the art as taught by Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring displaying the image in a display device and a controller programmed to perform the functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to implement tool tracking in software and executed by a computer and the processor ([0219]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and Zhao as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of “Conte et al.,” US 2007/0293869 (hereinafter Conte).
Regarding to claim 14, Mark and Zhao together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Mark and Zhao do not further teach wherein the cautery tool comprises a modular attachment comprising markers trackable by the tracking system.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in optically tracking instruments, Conte teaches a modular alignment system attached to the body of the instrument for optical tracker ([0014] and [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify optical markers as taught by Mark and Zhao to incorporate teaching of Conte, since modular attachment of markers to the instrument was well known in the art as taught by Conte. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark and Zhao with no change in their respective functions, configuring module for attaching optical tracker to the instrument for tracking, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide properly positioning optical tracker ([0014]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark, Zhao, and Conte as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of “Hamel,” US 2005/0251228 (hereinafter Hamel).
Regarding to claim 15, over Mark, Zhao, and Conte together teach all limitations of claim 14 as set forth above.
Mark does not further disclose wherein the cautery tool comprises an activation button, the cautery tool configured to activate in response to pressing of the activation button.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in cautery tool, Hamel teaches a cauterization device comprising an activation button, the cautery tool configured to activate in response to pressing of the activation button (button activating cautery unit [0065] and [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cautery tool as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Hamel, since electrocautery device with activation button was well known in the art as taught by Hamel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring the cautery device to be electrocautery with activation button, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide electrically activated cautery unit and providing means to activate, adjust various modes and settings of the tools ([0004] and [0065]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and Zhao as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of “Giordano et al,” US 2006/0257379 (hereinafter Giordano).
Regarding to claim 16-17, Mark and Zhao together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Mark does not further teaches controlling power to the cautery tool by comparing the movement of the cautery tool to the pathway.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in guiding instrument during medical procedure, Giordano teaches navigating a movement of a cutting tool ([0079]), controlling power to the tool by comparing the movement of the tool to the pathway, wherein controlling the power to the cautery tool by comparing the movement of the cautery tool to the pathway comprises ceasing power to the cautery tool in response to a position of the cautery tool deviating from the pathway by greater than a threshold amount (electrically operable tool, a supply of energy to the cutting tool can be interrupted immediately, thus cutting process can be stopped if the actual cutting path deviates from the desired contour (comparison has to be performed to determine deviation occurred) [0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify navigating tool as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Giordano, since controlling power to the tool based on the positional deviation from the trajectory was well known in the art as taught by Giordano. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring and programming to control the power to the tool based on a positional relationship to desired path, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide control of power to the tool based on the positional deviation from desired path ([0080]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and Zhao as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of “Kimura et al,” US 2011/0196202 (hereinafter Kimura).
Regarding to claims 18-19, Mark and Zhao together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Mark and Zhao do not displaying an upcoming portion of the pathway visually distinguished from another portion of the pathway and by a flashing or pulsing manner.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in guiding instruments, Kimura teaches the trajectory information of a section from the current position to the target position of the device with flashing or display color changing on a display ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify displaying planned path/trajectory as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Kimura, since flashing or display color changing on a display was well known in the art as taught by Kimura. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, configuring to display portion of the trajectory to be flashing manner, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to visually presenting trajectory information to user ([0107]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and Zhao as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of “Quaid, III et al,” US 2010/0137882 (hereinafter Quaid, III).
Regarding to claim 20, Mark and Zhao together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Mark further teaches performing a medical procedure through the bone ([0008]), and using cautery tool ([0140] and [0159]).
Mark does not further teach visualization of the pathway relative to a model and a representation of the tool.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in image guided navigation of medical procedures, Quaid, III teaches a computer aided surgery that guide an instrument using 3-D model of anatomical features, with position and orientation of trajectories and manipulating position and/or orientation of resections ([0061], virtual pathway guides tool from an initial position toward a target area and a desired pose relative to anatomy of the patient, guiding surgical tool to the target area along a path or trajectory [0074]; [0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify image as taught by Mark to incorporate teaching of Quaid, III, since model of anatomical feature was well known in the art as taught by Quaid, III. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mark with no change in their respective functions, reconstructing three-dimensional image models of anatomical features and displaying instrument relative to the anatomical feature, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide three dimensional position of instrument relative to the anatomy ([0110]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights