DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is in response to an amendment filed 8/5/2026. Currently claims 1-6 and 8-15 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in 9/25/2025 on Germany. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102024127703.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 second to last line recites “the apparatus” but this term does not find support previously in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segev et al. in US 2024/0265688 (hereinafter Segev).
Regarding claim 1, Segev disclose an apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) for an optical imaging system (Segev’s Figs. 1 and including wearable footswitch with optical sensors and emitters per par. 131), comprising one or more processors (Segev’s Fig. 1B) and one or more storage devices (Segev’s Fig. 1B: memory), wherein the apparatus is configured to:
obtain sensor data (Segev’s par. 131: optical sensor detect changes in projected pattern) indicative of a surrounding of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 131: emitter projecting pattern onto a surface, such as the floor 104 in Fig. 1A);
determine, based on the sensor data (Segev’s par. 131: changes in projected pattern), movement data (Segev’s par. 131: foot gesture) indicative of a movement of a foot of a user of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 131: foot motion);
generate, based on the movement data (Segev’s par. 131: foot motion), adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center which is selected based on user interface through footswitch and head gesture) for adjusting a setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 124: centering of image); and
transmit the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center) for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 124: centering of image),
wherein the apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to:
generate, in answer to generating the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center) and before adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system based on the adjustment data (Segev’s par. 126: prior to centering), feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change) indicative of a planned adjustment of the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 126: alert warning surgeon to expect centering of the image); and
transmit the feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change via HMD, sound or vibration) for providing the user the feedback about the planned adjustment (Segev’s par. 126: alert the user of the pending change via HMD, sound or vibration), wherein the apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to cancel the planned adjustment (Segev’s par. 126: user cancels the pending centering) in response to a cancellation input from the user (Segev’s par. 126: user cancels via UI).
Regarding claim 2, Segev disclose wherein the apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to obtain trigger data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: selection through UI of auto-center) indicative of a trigger event (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: selection through UI of auto-center) for generating the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center); and determine the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center) based on the trigger data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: selection through UI of auto-center).
Regarding claim 3, Segev disclose wherein the trigger event (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: selection through UI of auto-center) is at least one of a voice utterance of the user and a predefined movement of the foot (Segev’s par. 267, 295: selection of UI by performing pressing pedal [foot motion] and emitting voice command).
Regarding claim 4, Segev disclose wherein the apparatus is configured to:
generate, in answer to obtaining the trigger data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: selection through UI of auto-center), activation data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of pending change) for informing the user about an activation of a function (Segev’s par. 126: alert for centering) for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 124: centering of image) with the foot (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center which is selected based on user interface through footswitch and head gesture); and
transmit the activation data for informing the user about the activation (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change via HMD, sound or vibration).
Regarding claim 11, Segev disclose wherein the apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to generate the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center which is selected based on user interface through footswitch and head gesture) by determining, based on the movement data (Segev’s par. 131, 232: foot motion), gesture data indicative of a gesture performed by the user (Segev’s par. 234: foot press on a pedal) to control the optical imaging system with the foot (Segev’s par. 234, 363: foot press on pedal is used to control user input via UI).
Regarding claim 12, Segev disclose an optical imaging system (Segev’s Figs. 1 and including wearable footswitch with optical sensors and emitters per par. 131), comprising an apparatus according to claim 1 (as explained above).
Regarding claim 14, Segev disclose a method (Segev’s par. 2) for an optical imaging system (Segev’s Figs. 1 and including wearable footswitch with optical sensors and emitters per par. 131), comprising:
obtaining sensor data (Segev’s par. 131: optical sensor detect changes in projected pattern) indicative of a surrounding of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 131: emitter projecting pattern onto a surface, such as the floor 104 in Fig. 1A);
determining, based on the sensor data (Segev’s par. 131: changes in projected pattern), movement data (Segev’s par. 131: foot gesture) indicative of a movement of a foot of a user of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 131: foot motion);
generating, based on the movement data (Segev’s par. 131: foot motion), adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center which is selected based on user interface through footswitch and head gesture) for adjusting a setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 124: centering of image); and
transmitting the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center) for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 124: centering of image);
wherein the method further comprises:
generating, in answer to generating the adjustment data (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center) and before adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system based on the adjustment data (Segev’s par. 126: prior to centering), feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change) indicative of a planned adjustment of the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 126: alert warning surgeon to expect centering of the image); and
transmitting the feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change via HMD, sound or vibration) for providing the user the feedback about the planned adjustment (Segev’s par. 126: alert the user of the pending change via HMD, sound or vibration), wherein the apparatus (objection)(Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to cancel the planned adjustment (Segev’s par. 126: user cancels the pending centering) in response to a cancellation input from the user (Segev’s par. 126: user cancels via UI).
Regarding claim 15, Segev disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable medium (Segev’s Figs. 1B-1C: see memory) comprising a program code (Segev’s par. 106: software) that, when executed on a processor, a computer, or a programmable hardware component (Segev’s Figs. 1B-1C and par. 106), causes the processor, the computer, or the programmable hardware component to execute the method of claim 14 (as explained above).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev.
Segev disclose wherein the feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change) comprises a visual representation (Segev’s par. 126: warning displayed on HMD) for informing the user about the adjustment data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending centering); and wherein the apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to:
obtain sample data (Segev’s Fig. 4A and par. 268: image 414) of an optical imaging sensor indicative of an image of a sample (Segev’s Fig. 1a and par. 99, 268: magnified video of surgical field).
But Segev fails to explicitly disclose generating a composite image comprising the image of the sample and the visual representation, and transmitting the composite image for displaying on a display device.
However, Segev does disclose generating a composite image comprising the image of the sample (Segev’s Fig. 4A: see 414) and a visual representation of a UI (Segev’s Fig. 4A, 6A: see icons), and transmitting the composite image for displaying on a display device (as shown in Segev’s Fig. 4A, 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the composite image (Segev’s Fig. 6A) includes a visual representation of the alert of a pending change (Segev’s par. 126: warning displayed on HMD), in order to obtain the predictable result of allowing the user to see the alert (Segev’s par. 126) and cancel with the available icons already in the composite image (Segev’s Fig. 6A: cancel 612).
By doing such modification, Segev also discloses:
generating a composite image (Segev’s Fig. 4A and 6A) comprising the image of the sample (Segev’s Fig. 4A: see 414) and the visual representation (Segev’s Fig. 4A and 6A: upon combination, the image also overlays the warning of a pending change per par. 126), and transmitting the composite image for displaying on a display device (as shown in Segev’s Figs. 4A, 6A).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Rapoport in US 2019/0354200 (hereinafter Rapoport).
Regarding claim 5, Segev fails to disclose the apparatus is configured to initialize the function for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system, such that the foot of the user is positioned at a default position for using the function for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system.
However, in the related field of endeavor of foot pedals for medical applications (Rapoport’s par. 2) disclose an apparatus (Rapoport’s Figs. 1, 7) configured to initialize (Rapoport’s par. 27: calibrate in reference to foot) the function for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center, equivalent to selection of GUI icons or change of parameters in Rapoport’s par. 39-43), such that the foot of the user is positioned at a default position (Rapoport’s Fig. 3 and par. 27: starting position of foot) for using the function for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center, equivalent to selection of GUI icons or change of parameters in Rapoport’s par. 39-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to initialize the functions for selecting the UI menu such that the foot of the user is positioned at a default position (as disclosed by Rapoport’s Fig. 3 and par. 27, 39-43), in order to obtain the benefit of calibration (Rapoport’s par. 27).
Regarding claim 13, Segev disclose an illumination source (Segev’s par. 131: emitter projecting pattern on floor) configured to illuminate a part of the surrounding of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 131: floor to detect foot gesture). Segev fails to explicitly disclose the foot emitter emitting non-visible light.
However, in the related field of endeavor of foot pedals for medical applications (Rapoport’s par. 2), Rapoport discloses an illumination source (Rapoport’s Fig. 6 and par. 30: see 602) configured to illuminate a part of the surrounding of the optical imaging system (Rapoport’s Fig. 6 and par. 30: as shown) with non-visible light (Rapoport’s par. 30: see 606).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Segev’s emitters for foot detection illuminate a part of the surrounding of the optical imaging system (Segev’s par. 131) with non-visible light (Rapoport’s par. 30), in order to obtain the benefit of infrared tracking (Rapoport’s par. 30).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Bongalon in US 20220208335 (hereinafter Bongalon).
Segev fail to disclose an authorization of the user.
However, in the related field of endeavor of endeavor of using foot input in surgery settings, Bongalon discloses authorizing a user based on input pattern data (Bongalon’s par. 113-114) and permitting customization or unlocking functions based on the authorization (Bongalon’s par. 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Segev include an authorization for enabling certain functions (as disclosed by Bongalon), in order to obtain the benefit of identifying the user in a computer assisted surgical system without having to actively enter their user credentials (Bongalon’s par. 24).
By doing such combination, Segev in view of Bongalon disclose wherein the apparatus (Segev’s Figs. 1) is configured to:
determine, based on the movement data (Segev’s par. 131: foot motion, this is equivalent to operation pattern data [foot pedal presses] of Bongalon’s par. 113), an authorization of the user (Bongalon’s par. 113-114: authentication of user for surgical session) of the function for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 124, 363-365: centering of image selection equivalent to customized settings of Bongalon’s par. 116); and
adjust a functionality (Bongalon’s par. 116: upon authentication…certain features may be enabled or unlocked) of the function for adjusting the setting of the optical imaging system (Segev’s Fig. 6A and par. 363-365: auto-center which is selected based on user interface equivalent to customized settings of Bongalon’s par. 116) based on the determined authorization (Bongalon’s par. 116: upon authentication).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Ziraknejad et al. in US 2020/0038120 (hereinafter Ziraknejad).
Segev fails to disclose controlling an ultrasonic device for informing the user about the adjustment data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of touchless control of surgical environments, Ziraknejad discloses feedback data (Ziraknejad’s par. 82: haptic feedback) comprising a control signal (Ziraknejad’s par. 82: a signal to provide haptic feedback) for controlling an ultrasonic device (Ziraknejad’s par. 82: a device generating the ultrasonic waves for the user to sense touch) for informing the user about the adjustment data (Ziraknejad’s par. 82: information from interaction display unit IDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Segev’s feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change) comprises ultrasonic haptic feedback (as disclosed by Ziraknejad), in order to obtain the benefit of informing the practitioner via their sense or touch and not only by vision (Ziraknejad’s par. 82), and because Segev already discloses vibration as an alert (Segev’s par. 126).
By doing such combination, Segev in view of Ziraknejad disclose:
wherein the feedback data (Segev’s par. 126: alert of the pending change, which upon combination includes haptic feedback per Ziraknejad’s par. 82) comprises a control signal (Ziraknejad’s par. 82: a signal to provide haptic feedback) for controlling an ultrasonic device (Ziraknejad’s par. 82: a device generating the ultrasonic waves for the user to sense touch) for informing the user about the adjustment data (Ziraknejad’s par. 82 which upon combination is haptic feedback on the alert of pending change of Segev’s par. 126).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Itkowitz et al. in US 2021/0038340 (hereinafter Itkowitz).
Segev fails to disclose wherein the visual representation indicates the movement of the foot of the user in real time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of AR in surgical environments, Itkowitz discloses a cursor representing movement of a foot of the user in real time (Itkowitz’s Fig. 4A and par. 45, 48: see real-time cursor 202 which is a foot per par. 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Segev’s visual representation (Segev’s par. 126: warning displayed on HMD, e.g. icon selection by cursor pointing to it per par. 273) indicates the movement of the foot of the user in real time (Segev’s par. 126, 273: the visual feed back is the selection of the icon by a cursor pointing to it, which upon combination is an indication of the foot motion for selection in real-time per Itkowitz’s Fig. 4A and par. 45, 48); in order to obtain the benefit of providing the user with spatial awareness of the extremities relative to the virtual control elements (Itkowitz’s par. 45, 48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See above rejection in view of Segev, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights