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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The following limitation “a desired perspective is determined by the processor in response to the first wireless tag moving to a plurality of registration positions” is not clearly described in the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a desired perspective is determined by the processor in response to the first wireless tag moving to a plurality of registration positions” which renders the claim unclear. It is unclear what defines a desired perspective as well as what variables or values are used by the processor to determine the desired perspective.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the fourth wireless tag is positioned within the inner sphere.” There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weide et al (US20190090779A1;hereinafter referred to as Weide) in view of Fichtinger et al (US20160242855A1; hereinafter referred to as Fichtinger).
Regarding Claim 1, Weide discloses a wireless localization system (“The present disclosure relates systems, devices, assemblies, and methods for integrating wirelessly located marker tags into surgical and medical procedures.” [0002]) comprising:
a pad including an exciter coil and a sensor coil (“the kits and systems further comprise a remote activating device comprising a pad configured to be placed in proximity to a patient having the tag embedded in the patient (e.g., configured to be placed under the patient). In other embodiments, the pad further comprises a plurality of witness stations.” [0022]);
a first wireless tag configured to generate a first signal in response to a magnetic field generated by the exciter coil, wherein the first signal is detected by the sensor coil (“witness antennas comprise or consist of a ferrite-loaded cylindrical coil antenna, tuned (e.g., with one or more capacitors in parallel) for resonance at the frequency of an exciter (e.g., tag or emitter), (e.g., 100-200 kHz)” [0045], “the witness stations are provided below the patient (e.g., in a pad, garment, or other device positioned below the patient). In some embodiments, the witness stations are integrated into a surgical table or imaging device in which a patient is placed during a medical procedure” [0046]);
a second wireless tag coupled to a tissue of a patient, the second wireless tag configured to generate a second signal in response to the magnetic field generated by the exciter coil, wherein the second signal is detected by the sensor coil (“the tags are configured to be positioned in a subject at a surgical location or other clinically relevant location to mark a target region within a body.” [0028], “employing one or more or all of: a) a tag (e.g., comprising an antenna; e.g., a coil antenna; e.g., a ferrite-core coil antenna; e.g., that resonates at 100-200 kHz; e.g., coupled to an integrated circuit); b) a remote activation device that generates a magnetic field within a region of the tag; and c) a plurality of witness stations, each of the witness stations comprising an antenna configured to detect information generated by said tag or a change in a magnetic field generated by the remote activation device caused by said tag” [0062]);
a processor configured to determine a location of the first wireless tag and the second wireless tag based on the first signal and the second signal detected by the sensor coil (“a fifth component comprises a computing device comprising a processor that receives information from the witness stations of the third component and generates information about the relative locations, distances, or other characteristics of the tags, the medical device, and the witness stations.“ [0028]);
and a control console, and wherein the location of the second wireless tag is displayed on the control console from a desired perspective (“the fifth component comprises a display that displays such generated information to a user of the system.” [0028]).
Weide does not specifically disclose that the desired perspective is determined by the processor in response to the first wireless tag moving to a plurality of registration positions.
Howevewr, in a similar field of endeavor, Fichtinger teaches an apparatus and method for surgical tracking comprises an imaging device that generates an image of a tissue volume [Abstract].
Fichtinger also teaches that the desired perspective is determined by the processor in response to the first wireless tag moving to a plurality of registration positions (“In one embodiment, shown in FIG. 5A, the surgeon's view on the navigation screen 50 shows anatomy and tools aligned with the actual surgeon's viewpoint (shown schematically at 500). For example, if the surgeon moves a tool to left/right/up/down, then the tool moves left/right/up/down on the screen too. The view is specified by the view “normal” direction (direction of the line connecting surgeon's viewpoint and the point be looks at; view “up” direction; and focal point (position that is shown in the center of the view). These can all be determined fully automatically from the positions of tracked tools (e.g., reference sensor 46, localization needle 45, and cautery/cutting tool 47). Optionally, the orientation may be determined manually by moving the tracked tool. Table 1 summarizes different scenarios.” [0052], “Embodiments described herein allow for rapid intra-operative registration regardless of patient position and compensate for large amounts of motion and deformation of the tissue. The surgeon can use the tracked surgical tool as a “pointer” or “joystick” to manipulate the user interface, without touch, within the sterilized field. Virtual camera orientation can be set up, so that each participating surgeon can have his/her personalised view, showed in the correct viewing angle.” [0061]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide as outlined above with the desired perspective is determined by the processor in response to the first wireless tag moving to a plurality of registration positions as taught by Fichtinger, because it allows for the user to have a personalized view showing a correct viewing angle [0061].
Regarding Claim 11, Weide discloses that the tissue that the second wireless tag is coupled to is one of a lung tissue, a bone tissue, a soft tissue, and an artery (“The tag is not limited to placement within a particular body region, body part, organ, or tissue. For example, in some embodiments, the tag is placed in the cephalic, cervical, thoracic, abdominal, pelvic, upper extremities, or lower extremities region of the body. In some embodiments, the tag is placed within an organ system, such as the skeletal system, muscular system, cardiovascular system, digestive system, endocrine system, integumentary system, urinary system, lymphatic system, immune system, respiratory system, nervous system or reproductive system.” [0056].
Regarding Claim 12, Weide discloses that the second wireless tag comprises an outer housing including an anchor, wherein the anchor is configured to be secured within the tissue of the patient; and wherein the anchor extends radially outward from a longitudinal axis of the outer housing (“the housing has struts or other fasteners to keep the tag in place, avoiding migration in tissue. These struts may deploy upon placement in tissue. In some embodiments the fastener may be a biocompatible material that bonds with surrounding tissue.” [0032]).
Claims 2-3, & 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weide in view of Fichtinger as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramirez et al (US20190327394A1; hereinafter referred to as Ramirez).
Regarding Claim 2, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the system further comprises a camera with a field of view from a camera perspective; and wherein the desired perspective is the camera perspective.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches a stereoscopic robotic system that includes a stereoscopic visualization camera and robotic arm [0012].
Ramirez also teaches that the system further comprises a camera with a field of view from a camera perspective; and wherein the desired perspective is the camera perspective (“The example camera is configured to transmit a stereoscopic video signal to one or more television monitors, projectors, holographic devices, smartglasses, virtual reality devices, or other visual display devices within a surgical environment.” [0082], “The disclosure also refers herein to target site, scene, or field-of-view. As used herein, target site or field-of-view includes an object (or portion of an object) that is being recorded or otherwise imaged by the example stereoscopic visualization camera. Generally the target site, scene, or field-of-view is a working distance away from a main objective assembly of the example stereoscopic visualization camera and is aligned with the example stereoscopic visualization camera. The target site may include a patient's biological tissue, bone, muscle, skin or combinations thereof.” [0085]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the system further comprises a camera with a field of view from a camera perspective; and wherein the desired perspective is the camera perspective as taught by Ramirez, because it would allow for the system to determine how the instrument is being moved along the x,y,z axes in the field of view [0603].
Regarding Claim 3, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the location of the second wireless tag is displayed on the control console overlayed with the field of view from the camera.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches that the location of the second wireless tag is displayed on the control console overlayed with the field of view from the camera (“To configure the inclusion of peripheral data with the stereoscopic images, the processor 1562 may control an integration setup. In an example, the processor 1562 may cause the graphics processing unit 1564 to display a configuration panel on the display monitors 512 and/or 514. The configuration panel may enable an operator to connect a peripheral device 1576 to the interface 1574 and the processor 1562 to subsequently establish communications with the device 1576. The processor 1564 may then read which data is available or enable the operator to use the configuration panel to select a data directory location. Peripheral data in the directory location is displayed in the configuration panel. The configuration panel may also provide the operator an option to overlay the peripheral data with stereoscopic image data or display as a separate picture.” [0265]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the location of the second wireless tag is displayed on the control console overlayed with the field of view from the camera as taught by Ramirez, because it would allow for the system to determine how the instrument is being moved along the x,y,z axes in the field of view [0603].
Regarding Claim 5, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the plurality of registration positions includes at least one position at a first distance from the camera and at least one position at a second distance from the camera.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches that the plurality of registration positions includes at least one position at a first distance from the camera and at least one position at a second distance from the camera (‘The processor 1562 then records measurements of a height of an image at three different distances along the optical axis including at the object plane, a distance d less than the object plane distance, and a distance d greater than the object plane distance.” [0295])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the plurality of registration positions includes at least one position at a first distance from the camera and at least one position at a second distance from the camera as taught by Ramirez, because it would allow for the system to determine how the instrument is being moved along the x,y,z axes in the field of view [0603].
Regarding Claim 6, Weide discloses that the first wireless tag is positioned on a surgical tool (“a fourth component provides a medical device location emitter to allow the system to determine the location, position, distance, or other characteristic of a medical device relative to the tag or tags.” [0047]).
Regarding Claim 7, Weide discloses that the first wireless tag is positioned on a surgical robotic arm (“ Where a more complex medical device, such as a robotic surgical system (e.g., da Vinci surgical system) is employed, multiple emitters located on multiple different locations of the device are employed to provide location, orientation, and other position information of multiple components (e.g., arms) of the device.” [0048]).
Regarding Claim 10, Weide discloses a third wireless tag positioned on the camera; wherein the third wireless tag is configured to generate a third signal in response to the magnetic field generated by the exciter coil, wherein the third signal is detected by the sensor coil, and wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the third wireless tag based on the third signal detected by the sensor coil (“fourth component provides a medical device location emitter to allow the system to determine the location, position, distance, or other characteristic of a medical device relative to the tag or tags.”[0047])
Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the third wireless tag is positioned on the camera.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches that the third wireless tag is positioned on the camera (‘After power-up of the stereoscopic visualization platform 516, in some embodiments, the camera 300 and/or the robotic arm 506 is configured to perform further calibration/initialization to measure and verify a location and orientation of the camera 300 at that time.” [0461])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the third wireless tag is positioned on the camera as taught by Ramirez, because it would allow for the system to determine how the instrument is being moved along the x,y,z axes in the field of view [0603].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weide in view of Fichtinger further in view of Ramirez as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of El-Haddad et al (US20160324593A1; hereinafter referred to as El-Haddad)
Regarding Claim 4, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the plurality of registration positions includes an upper- right corner of the field of view, a lower-right of the field of view, an upper-left corner of the field of view, and a lower-left corner of the field of view.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, El-Haddad teaches instrument tracking in OCT-assisted surgery [0002].
El-Haddad also teaches that the plurality of registration positions includes an upper- right corner of the field of view, a lower-right of the field of view, an upper-left corner of the field of view, and a lower-left corner of the field of view (“comprising a plurality of markers in a known arrangement, is moved to a plurality of locations within a field of view of a plurality of camera assemblies. In one implementation, the model comprises four markers forming four corners of a square having a side length of 17.5 millimeters. At 154, a plurality of images of the model are captured at each of the plurality of camera assemblies, such that each camera generates a plural set of two-dimensional locations for each marker.” [0029], “In one implementation, the model is moved to four known positions in the OCT coordinate system, with two lying on an x-axis of the OCT coordinate system and two lying on a y-axis of the coordinate system. At 160, a plurality of images of the model are captured at each of the plurality of camera assemblies.” [0034]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger and further in view of Ramirez as outlined above with the plurality of registration positions includes an upper- right corner of the field of view, a lower-right of the field of view, an upper-left corner of the field of view, and a lower-left corner of the field of view as taught by El-Haddad, because it would improve the accuracy of the location of the working tip of the instrument [0015].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weide in view of Fichtinger and further in view of Ramirez as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Macvicar et al (US20200250386A1; hereinafter referred to as Macvicar).
Regarding Claim 8, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the first wireless tag is positioned in a moveable object with an outer shell, an inner sphere movable with respect to the outer shell, wherein the fourth wireless tag is positioned within the inner sphere.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Macivar teaches a self-righting radio frequency tracking tag [Abstract].
Macivar also teaches that the movable object includes an outer shell, an inner sphere movable with respect to the outer shell, wherein the fourth wireless tag is positioned within the inner sphere ("the self-righting mechanism is configured to allow for a RFID tracking tag to maintain an optimally (e.g. generally vertically) oriented position at all times by using a double-spherical design, in which a ballasted inner spherical shell or ball containing a RFID tracking tag rotates freely within an outer spherical shell or ball" [0005])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger and further in view of Ramirez as outlined above with the movable object includes an outer shell, an inner sphere movable with respect to the outer shell, wherein the fourth wireless tag is positioned within the inner sphere as taught by Charles, because it would always maintain the RFID tag in an optimal orientation even when the outer-sphere is prevented from rotating [0006].
Regarding Claim 9, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the inner sphere includes a weighted portion to orient the sphere in a default orientation with respect to gravity. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Macivar teaches a self-righting radio frequency tracking tag [Abstract].
Macivar also teaches that the inner sphere includes a weighted portion to orient the sphere in a
default orientation with respect to gravity ( "the self-righting mechanism is configured to allow for a
RFID tracking tag to maintain an optimally (e.g. generally vertically) oriented position at all times by
using a double-spherical design, in which a ballasted inner spherical shell or ball containing a RFID
tracking tag rotates freely within an outer spherical shell or ball" [0005])
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger and further in view of Ramirez as outlined above with the inner sphere includes a weighted portion to orient the sphere in a default orientation with respect to gravity as taught by Macivar, because it would always maintain the RFID tag in an optimal orientation even when the outer-sphere is prevented from rotating [0006].
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weide in view of Fichtinger as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Rudie et al (US20190365478A1; hereinafter referred to as Rudie).
Regarding Claim 13, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the exciter coil is a first exciter coil and the pad further includes a second exciter coil, a third exciter coil, and a fourth exciter coil positioned circumferentially around a center; and wherein the magnetic field generated by the first exciter coil, the second exciter coil, the third exciter coil, and the fourth exciter coil comprises three orthogonal magnetic fields.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rudie teaches systems for generating exciter signals to
activate a remotely located tag [Abstract].
Rudie also teaches the exciter coil is a first exciter coil and the pad further includes a second
exciter coil, a third exciter coil, and a fourth exciter coil positioned circumferentially around a center;
and wherein the magnetic field generated by the first exciter coil, the second exciter coil, the third
exciter coil, and the fourth exciter coil comprises three orthogonal magnetic fields (“ a remote activation
device (e.g., exciter assembly) that generates a magnetic field (e.g., time varying magnetic field) within a
region of the tag, the remote activating device comprising four or more exciter coils each configured to
flow current in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction such that the magnetic field generated
by the remote activating device may be selectively generated in substantially any of X, Y, or Z directions”
[0011]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the exciter coil is a first exciter coil and the pad further includes a second exciter coil, a third exciter coil, and a fourth exciter coil positioned circumferentially around a center; and wherein the magnetic field generated by the first exciter coil, the second exciter coil, the third exciter coil, and the fourth exciter coil comprises three orthogonal magnetic fields as taught by Rudie, because it would ensure that the tag(s) can be excited for any angle that it may be placed [0011].
Regarding Claim 14, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the sensor coil is a first sensor coil, the pad further including a second sensor coil, a third sensor coil, and a fourth sensor coil; wherein the first sensor coil, the second sensor coil, the third sensor coil, and the fourth sensor coil are positioned circumferentially around the first exciter coil.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rudie teaches that the sensor coil is a first sensor coil,
the pad further including a second sensor coil, a third sensor coil, and a fourth sensor coil; wherein the
first sensor coil, the second sensor coil, the third sensor coil, and the fourth sensor coil are positioned
circumferentially around the first exciter coil (“ a remote activation device (e.g., exciter assembly) that
generates a magnetic field (e.g., time varying magnetic field) within a region of the tag, the remote
activating device comprising four or more exciter coils each configured to flow current in either a
clockwise or counterclockwise direction such that the magnetic field generated by the remote activating
device may be selectively generated in substantially any of X, Y, or Z directions” [0011], “the assembly
comprising the exciter further comprises sensors (e.g., the receiving antenna/sensing/witness station
coils).” [0093], “location of the location emitters is accomplished geometrically by measuring the quasi-
simultaneous power detected from the emitters at a plurality of witness stations (e.g., four or more
stations)” [0119]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the sensor coil is a first sensor coil, the pad further including a second sensor coil, a third sensor coil, and a fourth sensor coil; wherein the first sensor coil, the second sensor coil, the third sensor coil, and the fourth sensor coil are positioned circumferentially around the first exciter coil as taught by Rudie, because it would determine the location of the emitter without ambiguity [0119].
Regarding Claim 15, Weide in view of Fichtinger teaches all limitations noted above except that the first sensor coil includes a first sensor axis and the third sensor coil includes a third sensor axis, wherein the first sensor axis is parallel to the third sensor axis, and wherein the second sensor coil includes a second sensor axis and the fourth sensor coil includes a fourth sensor axis, wherein the second sensor axis is parallel to the fourth sensor axis; and wherein the first sensor axis is perpendicular to the second sensor axis; and wherein the first exciter coil includes an exciter coil axis perpendicular to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rudie teaches that the first sensor coil includes a first
sensor axis and the third sensor coil includes a third sensor axis, wherein the first sensor axis is parallel
to the third sensor axis, and wherein the second sensor coil includes a second sensor axis and the fourth
sensor coil includes a fourth sensor axis, wherein the second sensor axis is parallel to the fourth sensor
axis; wherein the first sensor axis is perpendicularto the second sensor axis; and wherein the first exciter coil includes an exciter coil axis perpendicular to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis (“ a remote activation device (e.g., exciter assembly) that generates a magnetic field (e.g., time
varying magnetic field) within a region of the tag, the remote activating device comprising four or more
exciter coils each configured to flow current in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction such
that the magnetic field generated by the remote activating device may be selectively generated in
substantially any of X, Y, or Z directions” [0011], “the assembly comprising the exciter further comprises sensors (e.g., the receiving antenna/sensing/witness station coils).” [0093], “location of the location
emitters is accomplished geometrically by measuring the quasi-simultaneous power detected from the
emitters at a plurality of witness stations (e.g., four or more stations)” [0119], “The exemplary exciter
assembly 250 in FIG. 4A is also shown with twelve witness station assemblies 161 (each with a witness
coil 160). The twelve witness coils 160 alternate opposite orientation (along x and y axes)” [0149]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger as outlined above with the first sensor coil includes a first sensor axis and the third sensor coil includes a third sensor axis, wherein the first sensor axis is parallel to the third sensor axis, and wherein the second sensor coil includes a second sensor axis and the fourth sensor coil includes a fourth sensor axis, wherein the second sensor axis is parallel to the fourth sensor axis; and wherein the first sensor axis is perpendicular to the second sensor axis; and wherein the first exciter coil includes an exciter coil axis perpendicular to the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis as taught by Rudie, because it would reduce cross talk (This isolation is also important because crosstalk between the
exciter coil and witness coils would otherwise greatly impede navigation because the crosstalk term
would contribute significant signal) [0149, 0021].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weide in view of Fichtinger further in view of Rudie as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Ramirez
Regarding Claim 16, Weide in view of Fichtinger further in view of Rudie teaches all limitations noted above except that the system further comprises a camera with a field of view from a camera perspective; and wherein the desired perspective is the camera perspective.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ramirez that the system further comprises a camera with a field of view from a camera perspective; and wherein the desired perspective is the camera perspective (“The example camera is configured to transmit a stereoscopic video signal to one or more television monitors, projectors, holographic devices, smartglasses, virtual reality devices, or other visual display devices within a surgical environment.” [0082], “The disclosure also refers herein to target site, scene, or field-of-view. As used herein, target site or field-of-view includes an object (or portion of an object) that is being recorded or otherwise imaged by the example stereoscopic visualization camera. Generally the target site, scene, or field-of-view is a working distance away from a main objective assembly of the example stereoscopic visualization camera and is aligned with the example stereoscopic visualization camera. The target site may include a patient's biological tissue, bone, muscle, skin or combinations thereof.” [0085]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Weide in view of Fichtinger further in view of Rudie as outlined above with the system further comprises a camera with a field of view from a camera perspective; and wherein the desired perspective is the camera perspective as taught by Ramirez, because it would allow for the system to determine how the instrument is being moved along the x,y,z axes in the field of view [0603].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MALDONADO whose telephone number is 703-756-1421. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:00 pm PST M-Th 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Steven Maldonado/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights