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: “tracking system…” (i.e. in claim 6, equivalent to -- system for tracking ---) in claims 6 and 20, “user input device for obtaining…” in claim 20, “medical imaging device configured for generating…” in claim 20.
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.
The “tracking system” has been interpreted as corresponding to a camera and a computing device (i.e. computer), as set forth in paragraphs [0039]-[0040 and Figure 1 of Applicant’s PG-Pub 2026/0182944, and equivalents thereof.
The “user input device” has been interpreted as corresponding to a computer keyboard and/or mouse, as set forth in paragraph [0028] of Applicant’s PG-Pub, and equivalents thereof..
The “medical imaging device” has been interpreted as corresponding to computer tomography or x-ray imaging system which can comprise a common gantry (e.g., c-arm or o-arm), as set forth in paragraph [0029] of Applicant’s PG-Pub, 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, 7, 10 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 3, --- the --- should be inserted before “medical image data”
In claim 1, in line 6, --- of the at least two different bounding boxes --- should be inserted after “box”. Claims 18 and 19 are similarly objected to.
In claim 7, in line 1, --- at least two different --- should be inserted before “bounding”.
In claim 10, in line 1 --- of the at least two different bounding boxes --- should be inserted after “box”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, Examiner assumes that the limitation following the phrase is not part of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 6, in the second to last line, it is unclear as to whether the “a registration” is referring to the same registration set forth in claim 6, lines 1-2 (i.e. “the medical image data defines an image coordinate system that has been registered with a tracking coordinate system…”) or a different, distinct registration. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes the former.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method and claims 18 and 19 are directed to a product/apparatus.
The claim(s) 1 and 18-19 recite(s) creating at least two different bounding boxes in the medical image data so that each bounding box comprises imaging data indicative of at least one respective part of the patient anatomy not indicated by the image data of another one of the bounding boxes.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer-implemented” method and a computer/processor for performing the steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “computer-implemented” or “computer”/”processor” language, creating at least two different bounding boxes in the medical image data as claimed encompasses a human observing/viewing the medical image data and determining and drawing the at least two different bounding boxes in the medical image data as claimed, such as by using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by using a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites additional elements: 1) a computer/processor configured to perform the steps, 2) receiving medical image data indicative of a patient anatomy having multiple connected parts that are movable relative to each other and 3) simultaneously displaying images, wherein each of the images is associated with a different one of the at least two different bounding boxes. The computer/processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the step of receiving the medical image data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a means for gathering data for the other steps.) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of simultaneously displaying images amounts to extra-solution activity (i.e. post-solution activity). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element of using a processor/computer to perform the functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional elements of receiving medical image data and displaying images amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims do not appear to patent eligible as the dependent claims appear to be directed to insignificant extra-solution activity as they appear to be further limiting the steps of creating the bounding boxes (i.e. claims 2-5, 7-8), wherein such steps can be performed by a human using pen and paper and therefore are directed to the abstract idea, recite further steps that can be performed in the mind or performed by a human using pen and paper (10-11), and thus are directed to the abstract idea (i.e. mental process), recite further steps which amount to data gathering or are further limiting what is being displayed/outputted (i.e. claims 9, 12-17, 20) and thus directed to extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
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) 1-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hornecker et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0190377).
With regards to claims 1, 18 and 19, Hornecker et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a surgical planning system comprising at least one processor and a computer-implemented method for displaying medical image data, the method comprising:
receiving medical image data (i.e. previously taken medical image data) indicative of a patient anatomy having multiple connected parts (i.e. vertebrae) that are movable relative to each other (paragraph [0058], referring to a plurality of vertebrae being identified in the previously taken medical image data and the at least one anatomical element being a vertebra selected from the identified plurality of vertebrae; paragraph [0060], referring to, based on the selected at least one anatomical element, a scan region to be imaged by the medical image acquisition device is determined; Figures 2-3);
creating at least two different bounding boxes (i.e. virtual bounding boxes, i.e. 72, 74, 76) in the medical image data so that each bounding box comprises image data indicative of at least one respective part (i.e. sub-regions 44, 46, 48) of the patient anatomy not indicated by the image data of another one of the bounding boxes (paragraph [0066], referring to the scan region being determined to correspond to or comprise at least one virtual bounding box encasing one or more of the selected at least one anatomical element; paragraphs [0068], referring to plurality of sub-regions comprising one or more of the virtual bounding boxes, wherein “Each of the sub-regions may consist of one or more of the virtual bounding boxes” and “Each of the sub-regions may comprise or consist of a separate virtual bounding box..”, and therefore each virtual bounding box may comprise image data indicative of at least one respective part of the patient anatomy not indicated by the image data of another one of the bounding boxes; paragraph [0079], referring to each of the sub-regions (44, 46, 48) consisting of a different virtual bounding box (72, 74, 76); Figure 3) and
simultaneously displaying images, wherein each of the images is associated with a different one of the at least two different bounding boxes (paragraph [0071], referring to a visualization of an indication of the scan region may be triggered on the display means (40), wherein the visualization may comprise an indication of one or more of the plurality of sub-regions and comprise an indication of the virtual bounding boxes; paragraph [0074], referring to the medical image acquisition device (10) is instructed to image the scan region which may trigger acquisition of separate medical image data for each of the plurality of sub-regions by the medical image acquisiton device (10); paragraph [0075], referring to the visualization triggered in step (206) may comprise an indication of the three sub-regions (44, 46, 48) together with a representation/rendering (50) of the previously taken medical image data of the patient; paragraph [0079], referring to the image reconstruction comprising of “image stitching” after acquisition of the separate medical image data sets for each of the sub-regions (44, 46,48) [which are associated with a different one of the at least two different bounding boxes]; Figures 1, 3).
With regards to claim 2, Hornecker et al. disclose that the step of creating the at least two different bounding boxes comprises: selecting a part (i.e. sub-region or anatomical element; 44, 46, 48) of the medical image data; and creating at least one of the bounding boxes (i.e. virtual bounding box; 72, 74, 76) around the selected part (paragraphs [0019], [0021], referring to each of the at least one virtual bounding box may encase the respective selected anatomical element and each of the determined sub-regions correspond to a different virtual bounding box; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 3, Hornecker et al. disclose that the step of selecting a part of the medical image data comprises: segmenting the medical image data with each segment being indicative of one respective part (i.e. vertebra) of the patient anatomy; and selecting one or more image data segments around which the at least one of the bounding boxes is to be created (paragraphs [0075]-[0079], referring to the previously taken medical image data may be segmented to detect and identify all imaged vertebra of the patient’s body, wherein each of the subregions (44, 46, 48) comprise different vertebra segments and each of the sub-regions consists of a different virtual bounding box (72, 74, 76); Figure 3, note that bounding boxes (72, 74, 76) surround one or more image data segments/sub-regions (44, 46, 48)).
With regards to claim 4, Hornecker et al. disclose that the step of creating at least two different bounding boxes comprises: identifying a position of a tracked instrument (i.e. “tracked pose [i.e. position and pose, see paragraph [0010]] of a pedicle screw”); and creating at least one of the bounding boxes based on the identified instrument position (paragraphs [0076]-[0077], referring to “The first vertebra 52 may have been selected in step 204, as the planned pose of pedicle screw 54 in the coordinate system of the (e.g., rendering or representation 50 of the) previously taken medical image data indicates that the pedicle screw 54 extends into the first vertebra 52.” and “The second vertebra 56 may have been selected in step 204, as the tracked pose of a pedicle screw 60 in the coordinate system of the tracking system 20 relative to the patient's body indicated that the pedicle screw 60 extends into the second vertebra 56.”; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 5, Hornecker et al. disclose that the tracked instrument is indicated, in particular visualized, in the received medical image data and the position of the tracked instrument is identified based at least in part on the medical image data (paragraphs [0075]-[0077], referring to visualization comprising an indication of the three sub-regions (44, 46, 48) together with a representation/rendering (50) of the previously taken medical image date of the patient, wherein the previously taken medical image data indicates the pedicle screw (54) into the vertebra and wherein, as depicted in Figure 3, the tracked pose of the pedicle screw (60) is indicated in the received medical image data (i.e. previously taken medical image data; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 6, Hornecker et al. disclose that the medical image data defines an image coordinate system that has been registered with a tracking coordinate system of a tracking system, further comprising: receiving tracking data indicative of a position of the tracked instrument within the tracking coordinate system; and identifying the positioning of the tracked instrument within the medical image coordinate system based at least in part on the tracking data and a registration between the image coordinate system and the tracking coordinate system (paragraphs [0040]-[0041], [0055], referring to the processor being configured to detect a pose (e.g., at least one of a position and an orientation) of an optical tracker (22) attached to a surgical instrument (26) and referring to the pose of the surgical instrument (26) being determined in a coordinate system of the optical tracking system (20), wherein a transformation between a coordinate system of previously taken medical image data of the patient’s body (28) and the pose of another optical tracker in the coordinate system of the tracking system (20) may be determined, such a transformation referred to as a “registration”; paragraphs [0076]-[0077], [0079]; Figures 1, 3).
With regards to claim 7, Hornecker et al. disclose that the step of creating one of the bounding boxes based on the identified instrument position comprises automatically creating a bounding box around the identified position of the tracked instrument (paragraphs [0076]-[0077], [0079], referring to the first and second vertebrae, etc., being selected as the tracked pose of a respective pedicle screw (i.e. 54, 60) in the coordinate system of the tracking system (20) relative to the patient’s body indicates that the pedical screw extends in the respective vertebra, wherein each of the sub-regions (which comprise the vertebrae) consists of a different virtual bounding box (72, 74, 76), and thus the bounding box (72, 74, 76) is ultimately created based on the identified instrument/pedicle screw position; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 8, Hornecker et al. disclose that the automatically created bounding box has a predetermined size around the identified position of the tracked instrument (paragraph [0066], referring to “The at least one virtual bounding box may have a predetermined size (e.g., in exactly one, exactly two or exactly three spatial dimensions”; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 9, Hornecker et al. disclose that the anatomy is a spine (i.e. defined by the “plurality of vertebrae”) and each of the anatomy parts is a vertebra (i.e. “a vertebra selected from the identified plurality of vertebrae”) (paragraph [0058], referring to “a plurality of vertebrae may be identified in the previously taken medical image data and the at least one anatomical element selected in step 204 may be a vertebra selected from the identified plurality of vertebrae”; paragraph [0078]; Figure 3).
With regards to claim 20, Hornecker et al. disclose that the system comprises at least one of the following: a display (40) configured for displaying the medical image data (paragraph [0040]; Figure 1); a user input device (i.e. button, foot pedal, etc.) for obtaining user input data (paragraph [0055]); a medical imaging device (10) configured for generating the medical image data (paragraph [0044; Figure 1); at least one tracker (22 or “patient tracker” fixed relative to the patient’s body, etc.) attached to or attachable to at least one of a patient anatomy, a tracked instrument (26) and the medical imaging device (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]; Figure 1); and a tracking system (“optical tracking system 20”) configured to track the at least one tracker (paragraph [0040]; Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann (US Pub No. 2022/0398755).
With regards to claims 1, 18 and 19, Herrmann discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a a computer-implemented method for displaying medical image data, the method comprising:
receiving medical image data indicative of a patient anatomy having multiple connected parts (i.e. vertebrae) that are movable relative to each other (paragraphs [0063]-[0064], referring to the pre-operatively acquired data which includes pairs of adjacent vertabrae (26) ; Figure 4A);
creating at least two different bounding boxes in the medical image data so that each bounding box comprises image data indicative of at least one respective part (i.e. one vertebra) of the patient anatomy not indicated by the image data of another one of the bounding boxes (paragraph [0065], referring to the bounding volume/”bounding box” which is determined in the pre-operatively acquired image data for each of the vertebrae 26; Figure 4C); and
simultaneously displaying images, wherein each of the images is associated with a different one of the at least two different bounding boxes (paragraphs [0070]-[0071], referring to the vertebra (26) in Figure 4C being visualized on the output device (22); paragraph [0073], referring to obtaining second image segments (502) each containing a different one of the vertebrae (26); paragraph [0084], referring to output of surgical information, wherein the surgical information comprises a visualization of the intra-operatively acquired image data with enhanced regions at which two first image segments of the pre-operatively acquired image data for vertebrae L3 and L4 are overlaid; Figures 4C, 5-6).
With regards to claim 2, Herrmann discloses that the step of creating the at least two different bounding boxes comprises: selecting a part of the medical image data; and creating at least one of the bounding boxes around the selected part (paragraphs [0064]-[0065], referring to determining boundaries between pairs of adjacent vertebrae (26), wherein a bounding volume/bounding box is determined in the pre-operatively acquired image data for each of the vertebrae (26), and the bounding volume/box for a given vertebra (26) is limited by the boundaries towards its adjacent vertebrae (26) and a lateral enclosure extending between those boundaries, with the lateral enclosure being a circumferential structure completely encompassing the vertebra (26) at its sides, while the boundaries limit the lateral enclosure at its top and bottom ends; Figures 4A-C).
With regards to claim 3, Herrmann discloses that the step of selecting a part of the medical image data comprises: segmenting the medical image data with each segment being indicative of one respective part of the patient anatomy; and selecting one or more image data segments around which the at least one of the bounding boxes is to be created (paragraphs [0064]-[0065], referring to determining boundaries between pairs of adjacent vertebrae (26), wherein a bounding volume/bounding box is determined in the pre-operatively acquired image data for each of the vertebrae (26), and the bounding volume/box for a given vertebra (26) is limited by the boundaries towards its adjacent vertebrae (26) and a lateral enclosure extending between those boundaries, with the lateral enclosure being a circumferential structure completely encompassing the vertebra (26) at its sides, while the boundaries limit the lateral enclosure at its top and bottom ends; Figures 4A-C).
With regards to claim 9, Herrmann discloses that the anatomy is a spine and each of the anatomy parts is a vertebra (paragraphs [0064]-[0065], referring to the adjacent vertebrae; see Figures 4-6 which depicts the spine and vertebra).
With regards to claim 10, Herrmann disclose that the method further comprises for each bounding box, identifying a spine level of at least one part of the patient anatomy indicated by the image data of the bounding box (paragraph [0071], referring to the “vertebrae identifier L1 to L5”, wherein “L1 to L5” corresponds to spine levels, and referring to “This labelling information uniquely denotes each individual one of the vertebrae 26 in accordance with the conventional notation and helps to label and differentiate the individual vertebrae 26 (and image segments 402A to 402E). The labelling information may automatically derived, for example from the vertebra surfaces or other anatomic information in the pre-operatively acquired image data.”; Figures 4C, 5C, 6).
With regards to claim 11, Herrmann discloses that the spine level (i.e. levels L1 to L5) identification is based on an image segmentation of the medical image data (paragraphs [0064]-[0065], [0071], referring to the first segmentation step being performed, wherein boundaries are determined between pairs of adjacent vertebrae (26)( and a bounding box is determined for each of the vertebrae (26), wherein “labelling information uniquely denotes each individual one of the vertebrae 26 in accordance with the conventional notation and helps to label and differentiate the individual vertebrae 26 (and image segments 402A to 402E)”; Figures 4A-C; 5-6.
With regards to claim 12, Herrmann discloses that the method further comprises obtaining user input data indicating the at least one part of the patient anatomy for which the spine level is to be identified (paragraph [0064], referring to the segmentation of segments containing vertebrae being based on user input; paragraph [0072], referring to landmark detection being performed by user input; paragraph [0076], referring to the identification of vertebrae being responsive to user input).
With regards to claim 13, Herrmann discloses that the method further comprises displaying the identified spine levels (paragraph [0084], referring to the labelling information (i.e. L3, L4, etc.) being visualized (Figures 4-6).
With regards to claim 14, Herrmann disclose that each of the identified spine levels is displayed adjacent to the corresponding part of the patient anatomy (paragraph [0084], see Figure 6, referring to the spine levels (L3, L4) being displayed adjacent to the vertebrae).
With regards to claim 15, Hermann discloses that the images are displayed in different areas of a single display (paragraph [0084], referring to the intra-operatively acquired image data with enhanced regions at which two first image segments of the pre-operatively acquired image data for vertebrae L3 and L4 are overlaid/fused “at their correct anatomical context”, and thus would be displayed in different areas of the single display corresponding to the different areas of the anatomical positions of L3 and L4; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 16, Herrmann discloses that at least one of the displayed images at least partly overlaps with another one of the displayed images (paragraph [0084]; see Figure 6, wherein the image segment corresponding to L3 at least partly overlaps with the image segment corresponding to L4).
With regards to claim 17, Herrmann discloses that the displayed images are oriented based on an axis defined on the medical image data (paragraph [0084]; Figure 6, referring to the image segments being overlaid/fused “at their correct anatomical context as defined by the inter-operative position and orientation of the vertebrae L3 and L4 as defined by the intra-operatively acquired image data, and thus the displayed images/image segments are inherently oriented based on an axis of the coordinate system of the medical image data; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 20, Hermann discloses that the system comprises at least one of the following entities: a display (22) configured for displaying the medical image data (paragraph [0047]; Figure 1; a user input device for obtaining user input data; a medical imaging device (24) configured for generating the medical image data (paragraph [0049], referring to the imaging apparatus; Figure 1); at least one tracker (12) attached to or attachable to at least one of a patient anatomy, a tracked instrument and the medical imaging device (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; Figure 1); and a tracking system (10) configured to track the at least one tracker (12) (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]; Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnan et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0172700) disclose displaying images with pre-identified anatomical landmarks along the lumbar spinal column, wherein each anatomical landmark (406) may be presented by displaying an indicator (i.e. box) located at, around or near the anatomical landmark, wherein text labels (e.g., T11, T12, L1, L2, L3, etc.) may be displayed at or near the anatomical landmarks (406) (Abstract; paragraph [0053]; Figure 5A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights