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 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 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 11, 17, and 19 use the term “optionally color data”, “optionally to fuse”, “optionally repositioning”. The term “optionally” is considered indefinite as it’s not clear the exact requirements for the claims with respect to the “depth image” data types, whether there is a requirement for to fuse the one or depth images to a single depth image, and with respect to the repositioning and reorienting of the probe. It is suggested claims replace the “optionally” language with terminology that positively recites the requirements of the imaging system and method.
Claims 2 and 18-20, being dependent on claim 1 recites “a reference patient body” and claim 1 recites “a reference patient body”. It is suggested claim 2 be modified with proper antecedent basis for “a patient body”.
Claim 9, being dependent on claim 1 recites “the 3D human body surface model” and there is no mention of “a 3D human body surface model” in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a robotic arm comprising an end effector” and “an ultrasound probe mounted on said end effector” and lines 11-12 recite “the robotic arm is configured to position the ultrasound probe at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient’s body”. Claim 11 appears to not include these elements and after the transformation of the determined six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the probe step, the final step of the claim is configured to “store the transformed six-dimensional pose of the ultrasound probe…in memory”. It appears that there is a step missing at the and of claim 11 with respect to the robotic arm being configured to position the probe at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient’s body. The specification makes references to the “ultrasound probe pose transformation unit 30” as undergoing steps in lines 8-19 (claim 11) and then the last step as disclosed is “wherein the robotic arm (3) is configured to position the ultrasound probe (5) at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient's body” [0162] and also in claim 1 lines 11-12. It is suggested claim 11 be modified to further clarify the final step with respect to positioning of the probe at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient’s body.
Additionally, claim 11 also appears to be missing the steps “to read a saved six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the ultrasound probe on the 3D human body surface model from a computer-readable memory”. After line 13 of claim 11 and before line 14, it is not clear where the saved six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the probe on the body surface model is read from (such as the computer-readable memory). It is suggested the missing step with respect to the “reading a saved six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the ultrasound probe…from computer-readable memory” be inserted after line 13 and before line 14 of claim 11.
Claim 12, dependent on claim 11 recites “a 3D human body surface model” and claim 11 recites “a 3D human body surface model”. It is suggested claim 2 be modified with proper antecedent basis for “a 3D human body surface model”.
Claims 17 dependent on claim 1, recites “an ultrasound probe relative to a patient’s body by using the ultrasound imaging system according to claim 1”, Claim 1 recites “an ultrasound probe”, “a patient’s body” and therefore it is not clear if claim 17, being dependent on claim 1 is referring to the same elements or not and it is suggested claims 17 and 18 have proper antecedent basis for all claim elements.
Claim 18, being dependent on claims 17 which is dependent on claim 1, recites “the 3D human body surface model” in line 29 or page 7 and then recites “a 3D human body surface model” in line 2 of page 8. It is suggested claim 18 be modified with proper antecedent basis for “a 3D human body surface model”.
Claim 19, being dependent on claim 1, recites “system according to claim 1 comprising a robotic arm”, “an end effector”, “an ultrasound probe”, “a patient’s body”. Claim 1 recites “a robotic arm”, “an ultrasound probe”, “a patient’s body”, “an end effector” and therefore it is not clear if claim 19, being dependent on claim 1 is referring to the same elements or not. It is suggested claims 19 and 20, being dependent on claim 1, have proper antecedent basis for all claim elements.
The dependent claims do not provide additional clarity and therefore stand rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims are directed to a “computer-readable memory” for storing information on the transformed six dimensional pose of the probe. Signals, being transitory can also store information. Therefore, it is suggested the language be modified to “non-transitory computer-readable memory”.
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.
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: “ultrasound probe pose determination unit is configured to”, “dense pose determination unit is configured to ”, “ultrasound probe pose transformation unit is configured to”, “ultrasound probe pose determination unit is configured to” in claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 15.
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 Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims include the “-“ symbol throughout the body of the claims. It is suggested claims be submitted with proper formatting and removing the “-“ symbol to represent the components of the imaging system. Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims include letters (a-f, d1-d5, 1-8, a1-a2). It is suggested these letters be removed and the method steps be submitted with proper formatting for claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the language
“configured
to receive…
to fuse…
to estimate…
to select…
to generate…
to determine…
to read…
to transform…”
It is suggested claim formatting be modified to
“configured to:
receive…
fuse…
estimate….
select…
generate…
determine…
read…
transform…”
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The description appears to contain repetitive information similar to the claims, approximately page 8 onward. This creates undue burden and it is suggested specification be modified to reduce repetitions of the same subject matter and limit to relevant subject matter.
Additionally, the section “Description of the Figures” is placed at the end of the Specification (pages 88-94) and it is usually placed in an application immediately before the “Description of the Invention” section.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Related Prior Art:
Bashir et al. (WO 2024/042468):
Direct to “ an imaging system comprising: a laparoscopic ultrasound probe configured to be inserted through an access port and to obtain a plurality of 2D ultrasound images of a tissue; a laparoscopic camera configured to capture a video stream of the tissue; an image processing device configured to: generate a depth map of a surgical site from the video stream to estimate a 3D location of the laparoscopic ultrasound probe in frame of reference of the laparoscopic camera; localize the laparoscopic camera and the laparoscopic ultrasound probe in a world coordinate system based on the depth map; receive a volumetric image of tissue formed from a first modality images; generate an ultrasound volume from the plurality of 2D ultrasound images; register the ultrasound volume with the volumetric image of the tissue; and generate an overlay of the volumetric image of tissue and a 2D ultrasound image of the plurality of 2D ultrasound images; and a screen configured to display the video stream showing the laparoscopic ultrasound probe and the overlay extending from the laparoscopic ultrasound probe” (claim 1).
But there is no support for the claimed “dense pose determination unit” as claimed and the “transformation steps to determine an invertible six-dimensional coordinate transformation function by regression…transforming the read six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the ultrasound probe on the reference patient body to the depth image using the claimed function…wherein the robotic arm is configured to position the ultrasound probe at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient’s body”.
Bauer et al. (2026/0137367):
Direct to determining a motion path of a movable ultrasound probe. “The ultrasound image data 20 can be pre-processed by the image data pre-processing module 30 using at least one of the following: [0112] Resampling: The ultrasound image data 20 may be resampled to a given size or such that each of its pixels has a given resolution. This is done to make the system robust to some settings of the ultrasound system (like the depth or the number of scanlines used). [0113] Image Filtering: This includes any local filters (like low-pass or high-pass filters), adaptive filters (like speckle denoising, enhancing or masking) or global image transformation (like histogram equalization). [0114] Segmentation: Another pre-processing would consist in segmenting the image, i.e. classifying all pixels as one of multiple classes and using such probability maps as additional inputs. In a medical application for instance, an example would be to segment the skin, the fat, the muscle and the bone pixels. [0115] Any pre-computed feature: For instance, as described before, use as the optical flow vector field as additional channels for the model input” [0111-0115].
But there is no support for the claimed “dense pose determination unit” as claimed and the “transformation steps to determine an invertible six-dimensional coordinate transformation function by regression…transforming the read six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the ultrasound probe on the reference patient body to the depth image using the claimed function…wherein the robotic arm is configured to position the ultrasound probe at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient’s body”.
Martin, III et al. (2026/0087755):
“[0094] The processing system 106 can process sensor data from both the integrated imaging sensor array 110 and external imaging system interfaces 116 through coordinate transformation algorithms that align the registration sensor inputs into a unified spatial reference frame, enabling the extended reality visualization system 102 to accurately overlay vascular anatomy visualizations on the patient's physical arm during vascular access procedures. The system can maintain accurate spatial alignment as patients or practitioners move during procedures through real-time tracking capabilities and continuous registration updates, while incorporating both real-time and pre-procedural imaging data for enhanced procedural guidance”.
But there is no support for the claimed “dense pose determination unit” as claimed and the “transformation steps to determine an invertible six-dimensional coordinate transformation function by regression…transforming the read six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory of the ultrasound probe on the reference patient body to the depth image using the claimed function…wherein the robotic arm is configured to position the ultrasound probe at the transformed six-dimensional pose and/or trajectory on the patient’s body”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights