DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1,
“computing unit adapted to store pre-operative images”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (Pub. No.: US 2008/0013809).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu et al disclose an imaging and display system for guiding medical interventions comprising:
a display adapted to be worn by a user [see 0039] by disclosing the system includes a stereo LCD head mounted display (HMD) (201) that can be worn by a user [see 0039];
a detector (video camera) coupled to said display, said detector configured to capture intra- operative images from a target [see 0024, 0038] by disclosing video camera can be mounted on a head mounted display device to capture the images as seen by the eyes through the head mounted display device [see 0038];
a computing unit (computer 211) coupled to said display and to said detector, said computing unit adapted to store pre-operative images [see 0036, 0041, 0044, 0026-0027 and fig 2].
Regarding claim 2, Zhu et al disclose wherein said display presents said pre-operative image and said intra-operative (live video image) image simultaneously [see 0026-0027, 0040-0041] by disclosing a video image of the scene is captured and overlaid with graphics and/or images that are generated based on the pre-operative images [see 0040] and the images obtained from the video camera can be spatially correlated with the pre-operative images for the overlay of the video image with the pre-operative images [see 0027].
Regarding claim 3, Zhu et al disclose wherein said display presents said pre-operative image and said intra-operative image simultaneously as a composite, co-registered image on said display (HMD 1) [see 0026-0027, 0040-0041] by disclosing a video image of the scene is captured and overlaid with graphics and/or images that are generated based on the pre-operative images [see 0040] and the images obtained from the video camera can be spatially correlated with the pre-operative images for the overlay of the video image with the pre-operative images. [see 0027].
Regarding claim 4, Zhu et al disclose a communication interface (serial port) coupled to said computing unit (computer) to enable communication with at least one other display [see 0044, 0061-0062, fig 2].
Regarding claim 5, Zhu et al disclose a peripheral interface coupled to said computing unit (11), said peripheral interface (cable 119) adapted to communicate with one or more peripherals (microscope/tracking unit) [see figs 2-3, 0038-0039, 0044] by disclosing the tracking unit (207) and the microscope (203) communicate with the computer (211) via its serial port [see 0044].
Regarding claim 7, Zhu et al disclose a peripheral interface coupled to said computing device, said peripheral interface (cable 119) adapted to communicate with one or more peripherals (microscope/tracking unit) [see 0044, fig 2];
wherein said one or more peripherals comprises an imaging system selected from the group consisting of:
an ultrasound imager [see 0026].
Regarding claim 9, Zhu et al disclose a peripheral interface coupled to said computing device, said peripheral interface (cable 119) adapted to communicate with one or more peripherals (microscope/tracking unit) [see 0044, fig 2];
wherein said peripheral comprises a tracking system selected from the group consisting of:
an optical tracking system [see 0029, 0042], an electromagnetic tracking system, a radio frequency tracking system, a gyroscope tracking system, a video tracking system [see fig 2, 0029-0030], an acoustic tracking system, and a mechanical tracking system.
Regarding claim 10, Zhu et al disclose wherein the movement of said detector (video camera) is configured to be tracked by said tracking system [see 0024, 0041];
, such that the position of said intra-operative image captured by said detector is adjusted to maintain registration with said pre-operative image.
Regarding claim 11, Zhu et al disclose wherein said one or more peripherals comprises a tracking system and an imaging or sensing probe [see 0025-0027, 0042];
said probe capturing imaging or sensing data for composite presentation with said intra-operative image and said pre-operative image on said display [see 0026-0027]
Regarding claim 12, Zhu et al disclose wherein said probe comprises an in-vivo microscopy probe [see 0026, fig 1]
Regarding claim 13, Zhu et al disclose wherein the movement of said in-vivo microscopy probe is configured to be tracked by said tracking system, such that the position of said probe is presented on said display [see 0025-0026, 0041-0042] by disclosing representation of the probe is overlaid on the scanned image of the patient based on the current spatial relation between the patient and the probe [see 0025].
Regarding claim 14, Zhu et al disclose wherein said display comprises a stereoscopic display [see 0039, 0046] by disclosing the system includes a stereo LCD head mounted display (HMD) (201) [see 0039].
Regarding claim 18, Zhu et al disclose wherein said pre-operative images comprise tomographic images (because tomographic imaging refers to a technique used to create detailed images of specific sections of an object, often utilizing penetrating waves such as X-rays to produce cross-sectional images a method that provides high-resolution images of biological tissues, emphasis added) [see 0026].
Regarding claim 19, Zhu et al disclose wherein said pre-operative images comprise 3D models processed from pre-operative tomographic data (because tomographic imaging refers to a technique used to create detailed images of specific sections of an object, often utilizing penetrating waves such as X-rays to produce cross-sectional images a method that provides high-resolution images of biological tissues, emphasis added) [see 0023, 0026, 0036].
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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub. No.: US 2008/0013809) in view of Boppart et al (US Pat: 6, 485, 413)
Regarding claim 6, Zhu et al disclose a peripheral interface coupled to said computing device, said peripheral interface (cable 119) adapted to communicate with one or more peripherals (microscope/tracking unit) [see 0044, fig 2];
Zhu et al don’t disclose wherein said peripheral comprises a microscope (in vivo, hand-held or conventional) selected from the group consisting of: a fiber microscope, a handheld microscope, a color microscope, a reflectance microscope, a fluorescence microscope, an oxygen-saturation microscope, a polarization microscope, an infrared microscope, an interference microscope, a phase contrast microscope, a differential interference contrast microscope, a hyperspectral microscope, a total internal reflection fluorescence microscope, a confocal microscope, a non-linear microscope, a 2-photon microscope, a second-harmonic generation microscope, a super-resolution microscope, a photoacoustic microscope, a structured light microscope, a 4Pi microscope, a stimulated emission depletion microscope, a stochastic optical reconstruction microscope, an ultrasound microscope, and combinations thereof.
Nonetheless, Boppart et al disclose a confocal microscope [see column 8 lines 43-49] by disclosing two-photon, multi-photon, confocal microscopes [see column 8 lines 43-49].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Zhu et al and Boppart et al by using confocal microscope; because Confocal microscopes provide higher resolution images compared to conventional wide-field microscopes. They achieve this by using a focused laser beam to illuminate a specific point in the sample, which minimizes out-of-focus light and enhances image clarity; confocal microscopy has the ability to perform optical sectioning. This allows researchers to capture thin slices of a specimen at various depths, enabling the reconstruction of three-dimensional images. This is particularly useful for studying complex biological structures and cellular interactions.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub. No.: US 2008/0013809) in view of Mahadevan-Jansen et al (Pub. No.: US 2012/0010483).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu et al disclose a peripheral interface coupled to said computing device, said peripheral interface (cable 119) adapted to communicate with one or more peripherals (microscope/tracking unit) [see 0044, fig 2];
Zhu et al don’t disclose wherein said peripheral comprises a spectrometer selected from the group consisting of: an optical spectrometer, an absorption spectrometer, a fluorescence spectrometer, a Raman spectrometer, a coherent anti-stokes Raman spectrometer, a surface-enhanced Raman spectrometer, a Fourier transform spectrometer, a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR), a diffuse reflectance spectrometer, a multiplex or frequency-modulated spectrometer, an X-ray spectrometer, an attenuated total reflectance spectrometer, an electron paramagnetic spectrometer, an electron spectrometer, a gamma-ray spectrometer, an acoustic resonance spectrometer, an auger spectrometer, a cavity ring down auger spectrometer, a circular dichroism auger spectrometer, a cold vapour atomic fluorescence auger spectrometer, a correlation spectrometer, a deep-level transient spectrometer, a dual polarization interferometry, an EPR spectrometer, a force spectrometer, a Hadron spectrometer, a Baryon spectrometer, a meson spectrometer, an inelastic electron tunneling spectrometer (IETS), a laser-induced breakdown 5 spectrometer (LIBS), a mass spectrometer, a Méssbauer spectrometer, a neutron spin echo spectrometer, a photoacoustic spectrometer, a photoemission spectrometer, a photothermal spectrometer, a pump-probe spectrometer, a Raman optical activity spectrometer, a saturated spectrometer, a scanning tunneling spectrometer, a spectrophotometry spectrometer, time- resolved spectrometer, a time-stretch spectrometer, a thermal infrared spectrometer, an ultraviolet photoelectron spectrometer (UPS), a video spectrometer, a vibrational circular dichroism spectrometer, and an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer (XPS).
Nonetheless, Mahadevan-Jansen et al disclose a fluorescence spectrometer [see claims 10, 40] and head mountable detector [see 0088].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Zhu et al and Mahadevan-Jansen et al by using fluorescence spectrometer; the method is non-destructive and selective, providing a reliable way to analyze complex mixtures without altering the sample.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub. No.: US 2008/0013809) in view of Mihailescu et al (Pub. No.: US 2013/0237811).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu et al don’t disclose a stereoscopic detector.
Nonetheless, Mihailescu et al disclose a stereoscopic detector [see 0226] by disclosing the user wear a head mounted tracking and visualization system (HMTV) 1603, which comprises a camera system and this camera system can comprise a stereoscopic structured light system [see 0226, 0228, 0181].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Zhu et al and Mihailescu et al by using a stereoscopic detector; because stereotactic imaging refers to the capability of an imaging system to identify, label and register anatomical features of interest in 3-D so that follow up medical interventions and investigations can use those same 3-D coordinates to precisely guide medical instruments, or for re-evaluations. A stereotactic ultrasound instrument in accordance with an embodiment can be able to label features of interest in 3-D and register them in respect to anatomical landmarks so that follow-up investigations can easily use those coordinates to re-evaluate various medical conditions [see 0069, Mihailescu et al].
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub. No.: US 2008/0013809) in view of Balicki et al (Pub. No.: US 2012/0226150)
Regarding claim 16, Zhu et al don’t disclose wherein said display presents a plurality of different imaging or sensing data in a picture-in-picture format.
Nonetheless, Balicki et al disclose wherein said display presents a plurality of different imaging or sensing data in a picture-in-picture format [see 0022] by disclosing the information can be displayed as a picture-in-picture in the same screen as the real time surgical video feed or on a separate screen [see 0022] and he display could be, or include, head mounted displays [see 0038].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Zhu et al and Balicki et al by having the display presents a plurality of different imaging or sensing data in a picture-in-picture format; because the Picture-in-Picture (PiP) format offers several advantages for users, especially in a multitasking environment; PiP allows users to watch videos while performing other tasks, such as browsing or working on documents, without sacrificing screen real estate; PiP helps users maintain focus on the content they are watching, reducing distractions and improving productivity and the PiP window can be resized and repositioned, allowing users to customize their viewing experience based on their needs.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al (Pub. No.: US 2008/0013809) in view of Martin et al (Pub. No.: US 2009/0234225)
Regarding claim 17, Zhu et al don’t disclose wherein said detector is configured to detect one or more types of said intra-operative images selected from the group consisting of: a fluorescence image, a reflectance image, a color image, a light absorption image, a light scattering image, an oxygenation saturation image, a polarization image, a thermal image, an infrared image, a hyperspectral image, a light field image, a fluorescence lifetime image, a bioluminescence image, a Cerenkov image, a phosphorescence hyperspectral image, a spectroscopic image, a chemilluminescence image and a scintillation image.
Nonetheless, Martin et al disclose fluorescence image [see 0046-0047, 0114 and fig 12].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Zhu et al and Martin et al by using fluorescence image; it allows for the observation of live cells without the need for toxic staining processes, preserving cellular dynamics; Fluorescence imaging can produce multicolor images, allowing for the simultaneous identification of multiple overlapping structures within the same sample and unlike traditional microscopy, fluorescence imaging does not damage the sample, allowing for repeated imaging and analysis.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kritt et al (Pub. No.: US 2010/0079676)..
Regarding claim 20, a plurality of goggles (shutter glasses/ scanner devices 1010) [see fig 10, 0077], each including:
a stereoscopic display for viewing by the eyes of one wearing the goggle [see fig 10],
a stereoscopic detector (gateway 1046)) coupled to said stereoscopic display [see fig 10],
said detector having a field of view and projecting an image within that field of view onto said display [see fig 10],
a communication interface (wireless network) linking each of said plurality of goggles to communicate with each other [see fig 10].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798