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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 1/15/2026.
Upon further consideration and in view of the prior art applied below, any previous indication of allowability is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
However, it is noted that the rejection against Claim 19 is maintained. Applicant argues on page 6 that the amendment clarifies that the claim is directed to a method of navigating a medical instrument and not a human organism. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that when a claim requires a human organism to be present, it reasonably encompasses (includes) that human organism. While the intent of the invention and claim may be a method of navigating a medical instrument, when a claim requires a human to be present, it is encompassing and including that human in the claim. Because U.S.C. 101 does not permit a claim to encompass a human, the claim remains rejected. The Examiner notes that applicant can overcome this issue by claiming that the device is “configured to” be attached to a human body part. However, positively claiming that the device is attached to a human body part requires that human body part, and thus encompasses a human.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “attaching the device to a human body part within or around the navigation space” on lines 1-2 is reasonably a claim feature encompassing a human organism because it requires a human organism in the claim, as the subject of the action (attaching), thus raising an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner respectfully notes that claim recitations directed towards an “action” of a human are permitted in a process claim, because the claim feature is not directed to or intended to encompass a human, and is instead intended to be directed to an encompass an action of a human. Claim 19, however, is not directed towards an action of a human, and is instead directed towards and encompasses a human, because it requires a human to be present and be the subject of the method step. This claim therefore stands rejected because it reasonably encompasses a human organism.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21-27, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “transmitting magnetic signals from at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads or from a device within the navigation space; receiving the transmitted magnetic signals at the device or at the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of pads; and determining a location and orientation of the device based on magnetic signals received from the at least three antenna elements from the set of pads or the device” on lines 19-24 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description. This phrase raises an issue because it is the proper claim construction for this feature reasonably includes four situations, 1) three antenna elements transmit a signal that is received by the device, 2) the device transmits signals that are received at the three antenna elements, 3) the antenna elements transmit signals that are received at the same antenna elements, and 4) the device transmits signals that are received at the device. As best understood, the antenna elements do not receive the signals they themselves transmit, and the device does not receive signals that it itself transmits. However, as currently claimed, all four claim combinations are reasonable interpretations of the claim features above, but where only two are reasonably supported and explained. As such, the above options 3) and 4) raise an issue because applicant does not reasonably disclose such features or the manner in which they would be implemented in order to then determination a location and orientation as claimed on the last two lines. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature to establish proper written description.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “attaching the device to a human body part within or around the navigation space” on lines 1-2 introduces new matter.
Claim 18, from which this claim depends, already recites attaching the device to an object. Claim 19 distinctly reciting attaching the device to a human body part. In the combination, applicant is claiming attaching the device to both an object and a distinctly recited human body part, and thus is reciting that the device is attached to two distinct objects. The original disclosure does not reasonably support attaching the device to two distinct objects as part of the method, and thus introduces new matter.
As to Claim 25,
The phrase “configuring selected ones of the set of planar pads to receive magnetic fields” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
A pad is not reasonably capable of being configured to receive magnetic fields. As best understood, when applicant claims that the pad is configured to “receive magnetic fields,” applicant intends this phrase to mean that the pad is being configured to be able to detect these fields. However, a pad itself is not reasonably capable of performing such a function. Instead, it is the antenna elements on the pad that can perform a detection of the magnetic field. Applicant distinctly recites the antenna elements from the pads as seen in Claim 16, and thus they are not reasonably the same thing, and a pad alone would not reasonably be capable of this function. As such, the above phrase introduces new matter and lacks proper written description because applicant does not originally disclose a pad, distinct from the antenna elements, that is able to receive magnetic fields and being configured to perform this function, as well as provide any reasonably explanation to demonstrate the manner in which a pad can perform this function.
As to Claim 27,
The phrase “performing continuous magnetic field monitoring via one or more of the planar pads of the set of planar pads” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
A pad is not reasonably capable of being monitoring magnetic fields. As best understood, when applicant claims that the pad is configured to “monitor magnetic fields,” applicant intends this phrase to mean that the pad is being configured to be able to detect these fields. However, a pad itself is not reasonably capable of performing such a function. Instead, it is the antenna elements on the pad that can perform a detection of the magnetic field. Applicant distinctly recites the antenna elements from the pads as seen in Claim 16, and thus they are not reasonably the same thing, and a pad alone would not reasonably be capable of this function.
As to Claim 44,
The phrase “transmitting magnetic signals from at least three first and second antenna elements or from a device within the configured navigation space; receiving the transmitted magnetic signals at the device or at the at least three of the antenna elements; and determining a location and orientation of the device based on the received magnetic signals within the configured navigation space” on the last six lines introduces new matter and lacks proper written description. This phrase raises an issue because it is the proper claim construction for this feature reasonably includes six situations, 1) three antenna elements transmit a signal that is received by the device, 2) the device transmits signals that are received at the three antenna elements, 3) the antenna elements transmit signals that are received at the same antenna elements, 4) the device transmits signals that are received at the device, 5) three antenna elements from each of the first and second antenna elements transmit magnetic signals that are received at the device, and 6) three antenna elements from each of the first and second antenna elements transmit magnetic signals that are received at the same antenna elements from the first and second antenna elements. As best understood, the antenna elements do not receive the signals they themselves transmit, and the device does not receive signals that it itself transmits. However, as currently claimed, all four claim combinations are reasonable interpretations of the claim features above, but where only two are reasonably supported and explained. As such, the above options 3), 4), and 6 raise an issue because applicant does not reasonably disclose such features or the manner in which they would be implemented in order to then determination a location and orientation as claimed on the last two lines. Furthermore, applicant does not reasonably originally disclose the use of three antenna elements from each of the first and second antenna elements that generate magnetic signals received at the device for a later location and orientation determination as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature to establish proper written description.
As to Claims 7-19 and 21-27,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 16-19, 21-27, and 44 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.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “exciting individual elements" on lines 9-10 is indefinite. While applicant does claim that these elements are “on the at least one first planar pad,” applicant is distinctly reciting them from the previously claimed “at least three antenna elements” previously claimed to be part of the first pad. As such, the difference and relationship between these distinct recitations of the antenna elements are unclear.
The phrase “measuring the generated magnetic fields at the antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad” on lines 11-12 is indefinite. While a second planar pad was previously stated to “have” at least “one” antenna element, it was not claimed to have plural antenna elements on the pad. As such, it is unclear what antenna elements the above phrase is referencing, and the relationship and difference to the previously recited “at least one antenna element” are unclear.
The phrase “of antenna elements” on lines 14 and 17 is indefinite. Applicant previously claims “at least one antenna element” as part of the second pad. Such a recitation reasonably includes all possible antenna elements, and is being distinctly recited from the above antenna elements but where it is not reasonably distinct. As such, the difference and relationship between these recitations are unclear. Furthermore, the difference and relationship between the two distinct “of antenna elements” recitations are also unclear, as both, as best understood, are referring to the same antenna elements but are distinctly recited.
The phrase “transmitting magnetic signals from at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads or from a device within the navigation space; receiving the transmitted magnetic signals at the device or at the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of pads” on lines 19-22 is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear what is transmitting and receiving in light of the disclosure. The above claim phrase reasonably includes four situations, 1) three antenna elements transmit a signal that is received by the device, 2) the device transmits signals that are received at the three antenna elements, 3) the antenna elements transmit signals that are received at the same antenna elements, and 4) the device transmits signals that are received at the device. As best understood, the antenna elements do not receive the signals they themselves transmit, and the device does not receive signals that it itself transmits. However, as currently claimed, all four claim combinations are reasonable interpretations of the claim features above, but where only two are reasonably supported and explained. As such, the full claim scope is unclear because it is unclear which of the four situations noted above are and are not required in the claim.
The phrase “magnetic signals received from" on the last two lines is indefinite. It is unclear what “magnetic signals” are received from the antenna elements as claimed. An antenna, such as a coil, can receive a magnetic signal (magnetic field), but any signal then generated by the antenna used for location and orientation determination must be an electrical signal, and not a magnetic signal. To the extent that applicant is referring to the magnetic fields detected by the antenna elements, applicant has already claimed magnetic signals received at the antenna elements in the prior claim feature. It is therefore unclear what the relationship is between the two distinctly recited magnetic signals recitations, and is it unclear how any electrical circuit can receive a magnetic signal from an antenna that is not reasonably capable of providing such a signal to any processing device.
As to Claim 21,
The phrase “wherein transmitting magnetic signals” on line 1 is indefinite because applicant already recites transmitting magnetic signals, and it is unclear if this phrase introduces a new step of transmitting or if applicant is referring to the previous step of transmitting. It is suggested to use antecedent language to address this issue, such as by reciting “wherein the transmitting magnetic signals.” For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the phrase to refer back to the previous transmitting step and thus further limit that step.
The phrase “"the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads" on lines 2-3 is indefinite. At issue here is that more than three antenna elements were previously recited across more than one pad. The first pad is claimed to have at least three elements, and the second pad is claimed to have at least one antenna element. As such, this phrase is indefinite because, in light of the disclosure, it is unclear if applicant intends this phrase to refer to the three elements from the first pad, or a combination of elements spread cross the first and second pads.
As to Claim 22,
The phrase "the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads" on lines 2-3 is indefinite. At issue here is that more than three antenna elements were previously recited across more than one pad. The first pad is claimed to have at least three elements, and the second pad is claimed to have at least one antenna element. As such, this phrase is indefinite because, in light of the disclosure, it is unclear if applicant intends this phrase to refer to the three elements from the first pad, or a combination of elements spread cross the first and second pads.
The phrase “a device” on line 3 is indefinite because a device was already introduced in Claim 21, and as best understood, both devices refer to the same device but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these two devices are unclear.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the antenna elements of the at least one planar pad" on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Claim 16 recites a first pad with at least three antenna elements and a second pad with at least one antenna element, either of which could reasonably be the antenna elements of the above phrase. As such, it is unclear which antenna elements and which pad this phrase is referencing.
The phrase "wherein the method further comprises driving the antenna elements from the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields with distinct geometries" on lines 2-4 is indefinite. At issue here is that plural antenna elements were previously recited for more than one pad. The first pad is claimed to have at least three elements, and the second pad is claimed to have at least one antenna element, which reasonably can include plural antenna elements due to the phrase “at least one.” As such, this phrase is indefinite because, in light of the disclosure, it is unclear antenna elements and what pad this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 24,
The phrase "wherein the method further comprises driving the antenna elements from the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields with distinct geometries" on lines 1-3 is indefinite. At issue here is that plural antenna elements were previously recited for more than one pad. The first pad is claimed to have at least three elements, and the second pad is claimed to have at least one antenna element, which reasonably can include plural antenna elements due to the phrase “at least one.” As such, this phrase is indefinite because, in light of the disclosure, it is unclear antenna elements and what pad this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 25,
The phrase “configuring selected ones of the set of planar pads to receive magnetic fields” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) Claim 16 now recites two distinct sets of magnetic fields. The first set is part of the initial exciting and measuring steps on lines 9-12, and the second set is found in the subsequent “transmitting magnetic signals” and “receiving the transmitted signals,” where such signals, in light of the disclosure, are magnetic fields. Applicant however is now distinctly reciting “to receive magnetic fields” in the above phrase, but where no other magnetic fields are reasonably present, and where as best understood, these magnetic fields refer to either the fields in the first or second sets noted above As such, the difference and relationship between the above magnetic fields and those previously recited are unclear.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear in which of the sets the above configuration is being made. As noted above, there are two distinct sets (periods of time) where applicant initially generates magnetic fields and measures those fields to obtain the relative positions of the antenna elements, and then later uses the fields to determine the location and orientation of the device. It is unclear which of these two sets the above phrase is referring to when performing any configuring as claimed.
3) The third issue is that it is unclear what applicant means by “configuring selected ones of the set of planar pads.” No pads have been claimed to be “selected,” and thus it is unclear which pads applicant is referencing.
4) The fourth issue is that it is unclear how a pad can be configured to receive magnetic fields. As best understood, when applicant claims that the pad is configured to “receive magnetic fields,” applicant intends this phrase to mean that the pad is being configured to be able to detect these fields. However, a pad itself is not reasonably capable of performing such a function. Instead, it is the antenna elements on the pad that can perform a detection of the magnetic field. Applicant distinctly recites the antenna elements from the pads as seen in Claim 16, and thus they are not reasonably the same thing, and a pad alone would not reasonably be capable of this function.
5) The fifth issue is that it is unclear what new claim feature is being introduced with this phrase, as this phrase only requires selected pads to be configured to receive magnetic fields. Claim 16 already recites and requires the configuration of at least one pad to measure, and thus receive magnetic fields. As best understood, the any configuring of a pad to receive magnetic fields must have already occurred in Claim 16. To the extent that applicant intends this phrase to refer to more than one pad, this phrase is further indefinite because it is unclear if the selected pads include the at least one second planar pad from Claim 16, and it is unclear what the relationship is between the above distinctly recited “selected pads” from any of the previously recited pads of Claim 16.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to refer to the at least one second planar pad, and thus the ability of the antenna elements on this pad to measure magnetic fields are considered the same as the feature of Claim 25.
As to Claim 27,
The phrase “performing continuous magnetic field monitoring via one or more of the planar pads of the set of planar pads” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) Claim 16 already recites measuring and receiving of magnetic fields/signals. Applicant is distinctly claiming magnetic field monitoring in the above phrase, but where, as best understood, such monitoring is reasonably referring to the measuring of the magnetic fields already recited in Claim 16. As such, the difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited features are unclear as they are not distinct. Even to the extent that this phrase was intended to receive to the received magnetic signals recitation of Claim 16, the same issue would exist.
2) Continuous magnetic field monitoring must reasonable include a magnetic field to be monitored. Claim 16, already recites magnetic fields and magnetic signals, and as best understood, any magnetic field monitoring would be of one or both of these fields/signals. The above magnetic field monitoring is being distinctly recited from these fields, however, rendering their relationship and difference as being unclear.
3) Applicant already claims using the elements of the second pad to measure magnetic fields, and it is unclear if the “one or more” pads in the above phrase is the same as the second pad of Claim 16, or if it is intended to refer to a different pad. The difference and relationship between the already recited at least one first and at least one second planar pads in contrast with the above “one or more” pads are therefore unclear.
4) The fourth issue is that it is unclear how a pad can be configured to “monitor” magnetic fields. As best understood, when applicant claims that the pad is configured to “monitor magnetic fields,” applicant intends this phrase to mean that the pad is being configured to be able to detect these fields. However, a pad itself is not reasonably capable of performing such a function. Instead, it is the antenna elements on the pad that can perform a detection of the magnetic field. Applicant distinctly recites the antenna elements from the pads as seen in Claim 16, and thus they are not reasonably the same thing, and a pad alone would not reasonably be capable of this function.
As to Claim 44,
The phrase “transmitting magnetic signals from at least three of the first and second antenna elements or from a device within the configured navigation space” on lines 19-20 is indefinite.
Applicant initially claims that there are at least three first antenna elements and at least one second antenna element. Applicant, in the above phrase, then claims “at least three of the first and second antenna elements.” At issue here is that it is unclear if this phrase is intended to require at least three first antennas and at least three second antennas, or if it is intended to require at least three total antennas amongst the first and second antennas. This phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being interpreted to require at least three first and at least three second antenna elements transmit the claimed magnetic signals.
The phrase "the measured magnetic fields" on line 14 is indefinite. Applicant previously recites measured first magnetic fields or the generated second antenna element magnetic field, making it unclear what measured field fields this phrase is referencing. This phrase could be referring to the measured magnetic fields of just the first fields, but there are no plural “fields” to measure when referencing the second antenna element magnetic field. As such, it is unclear if this phrase was intended to refer to just the first fields that were measured, a combination of both first and second fields, a feature that would not reasonably exist, or was intended to be refer back to either the first fields or the singular second magnetic field. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that this phrase only refers to the first magnetic fields, as no other fields would reasonably exist that could be referenced with this phrase.
As to Claims 7-19 and 21-27,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-19 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (US 2011/0224537) in view of Govari (US 2004/0068178) and Sramek et al. (Sramek) (US 2017/0202627)
As to Claim 16,
Brunner discloses A magnetic navigation method comprising: positioning a set of planar pads in a planar configuration to define a navigation space (Paragraph [0026] / note the first pad is the layer of generators below the patient and the second pad is the layer of generates above the patient), wherein at least one first planar pad (e.g. 210 in Figure 2A) of the set of planar pads has at least three antenna elements having coils in fixed, known locations parallel to and supported by the at least one planar pad of the set of planar pads and at least one second planar pad (another (e.g. another 210 in Figure 2A) of the set of planar pads having at least one antenna element (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraphs [0026],[0045],[0046] / note each pad has at least three antenna elements (108) formed from coils (202)), each of the at least three antenna elements and at least one antenna element comprising multiple turns of a conductor (Paragraph [0046] / note number of windings or turns reasonably means plural windings or turns are included), each turn supported on and parallel to one layer of the planar pad it is supported by (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraphs [0026],[0045],[0046]), exciting individual antenna elements on the at least one first planar pad of the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields (Paragraph [0026]); a model can be used to describe the values of magnetic fluxes at different points within a measurement volume (such as the region 102) due to magnetic fields induced by known sources at known locations (such as sets of field generators) (Paragraph [0038]), and following the creation of the model to relate the locations and magnetic fields at various antenna elements (Paragraph [0038]), transmitting magnetic signals from at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads or from a device within the navigation space (Paragraph [0026]); receiving the transmitted magnetic signals at the device (103) or at the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of pads (Paragraph [0030]); and determining a location and orientation of the device based on magnetic signals received from the at least three antenna elements from the set of pads or the device (Paragraph [0034]), and that different orientations of the antenna elements can be used relative to each other (Paragraphs [0026],[0045] / note the antennas can be modulator, removable, interchangeable, and adjustable including a vertical orientation).
Brunner does not disclose positioning a set of planar pads in a non-coplanar configuration to define a navigation space, exciting individual antenna elements on the at least one first planar pad of the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields and measuring the generated magnetic fields at the antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads; determining relative locations of antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads based on the measured magnetic fields and the fixed, known locations of the at least three antenna elements on the at least one first planar pad of the set of planar pads; and following determining the relative locations of antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads
Govari discloses exciting individual antenna elements of a primary radiator group (22) to generate magnetic fields (Paragraph [0067]); measuring the generated magnetic fields at the antenna elements (28) on the at least one pad (Paragraphs [0067], [0082] / note the secondary radiator group (28) reasonably is on a pad); determining relative locations of antenna elements of the secondary radiator group based on the measured magnetic fields and the fixed, known locations of the at least three antenna elements of the primary radiator group (Paragraph [0067]), (Figure 1); and following determining the relative locations of antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads: using the relative locations and subsequently generated magnetic fields for determining a location and orientation of the device based on magnetic signals received from the at least three antenna elements from the set of pads or the device (Paragraph [0094]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brunner to include actively determining the relative locations of the radiators (individual antenna elements) instead of relying upon a model to therefore include exciting individual antenna elements on the at least one first planar pad of the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields and measuring the generated magnetic fields at the antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads; determining relative locations of antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads based on the measured magnetic fields and the fixed, known locations of the at least three antenna elements on the at least one first planar pad of the set of planar pads; and following determining the relative locations of antenna elements on the at least one second planar pad of the set of planar pads: transmitting magnetic signals from at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads or from a device within the navigation space; receiving the transmitted magnetic signals at the device or at the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of pads; and determining a location and orientation of the device based on magnetic signals received from the at least three antenna elements from the set of pads or the device given the above disclosure and teaching of Govari in order to advantageously be able to recompute the relative locations of the various antenna elements located on the difference pads when such elements are rotated, moved, or otherwise changed in some manner to thereby advantageously minimize errors based upon these changes, and to enhance the accuracy of the determination of the location of the probe in the body (Paragraph [0083]).
Sramek discloses positioning a set of planar pads (102-1,102-2) in a non-planar configuration to define a navigation space (Figure 7), (Paragraphs [0096]-[0098] / note that applicant discloses the pads can be rigid, and thus the structures the coils of Sramek are located in can reasonably be considered respective pads).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brunner in view of Govari to include positioning a set of planar pads in a non-planar configuration to define a navigation space given the above disclosure and teaching of Sramek in order to advantageously be able to reposition the structure a patient is on in different orientations so as to allow the patient to be more comfortable during any testing but still allow for the desired testing to be performed.
As to Claim 17,
Brunner discloses the device comprises multiple antenna elements spaced apart and supported on a first pad (Paragraph [0030] / note the antenna elements must be supported on a substrate or layer which can reasonably be called a pad, especially as other circuitry components are present including a transceiver that would require such a component).
As to Claim 18,
Brunner discloses attaching the device to an object (105) within or around the navigation space (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0030],[0041]).
As to Claim 19,
Brunner discloses further comprising attaching the device to a human body part within or around the navigation space (Paragraph [0041] / note body mounted sensors as the object).
As to Claim 21,
Brunner discloses transmitting magnetic signals from the set of planar pads comprises individually driving the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads (Paragraphs [0025],[0026]).
As to Claim 22,
Brunner discloses wherein one or more antenna drivers continuously monitor and adjust magnitudes of currents driven through the at least three of the antenna elements from the set of planar pads or from a device within the navigation space to account for environmental changes (Paragraphs ]0023], [0053],[0054] / note the driving can be reasonable be considered continuous as it is performed during the use of the object, and such a feature, as best understood, would reasonably account for environmental changes).
As to Claim 23,
Brunner discloses the antenna elements of the at least one planar pad are coupled in series or in parallel (Paragraph [0045] / note the coils (elements) are connected to each other, and that connection must be either a series or parallel connection), and wherein the method further comprises driving the antenna elements from the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields with distinct geometries (Paragraph [0027] / note the variety of shapes of the field that can be created).
As to Claim 24,
Brunner discloses driving the antenna elements of the at least three of the antenna elements of the set of planar pads to generate magnetic fields with distinct geometries (Paragraph [0027] / note the variety of shapes of the field that can be created).
As to Claim 25,
Brunner in view of Govari discloses configuring selected ones of the set of planar pads to receive magnetic fields (Paragraphs [0067], [0082] / note the secondary radiator group (28) reasonably is on a pad, in the combination, and that the secondary radiator group / at least one antenna element of the second pad has already been taught to receive magnetic fields in Claim 16, and those antennas from that pad must have been selected and configured to be selected).
As to Claim 26,
Brunner discloses the set of planar pads are supported by a three dimensional rigid structure (e.g. 114) having planes that intersect to form vertices having known distances (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0024]).
As to Claim 27,
Brunner discloses performing continuous magnetic field monitoring via one or more of the planar pads of the set of planar pads (Paragraphs ]0023], [0053],[0054] / note the driving can be reasonable be considered continuous as it is performed during the use of the object, and such a feature, as best understood, would reasonably account for environmental changes).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunner (US 2011/0224537) in view of Govari (US 2004/0068178).
As to Claim 44,
Brunner discloses A magnetic navigation method comprising: positioning a first pad (e.g. 210 in Figure 2A) in a first fixed position (Figures 1,2A,2B), (Paragraphs [0026],[0045],[0046] / note the pads above and below the patient), the first pad having at least three first antenna elements having coils in fixed, known locations parallel to and supported by a first planar surface of the first pad (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraphs [0026],[0045],[0046] / note each pad has at least three antenna elements (108) formed from coils (202)); configuring a moveable second pad (e.g. another of 210 in Figure 2A) in a second position (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraphs [0026],[0045],[0046] / note each pad has at least three antenna elements (108) formed from coils (202) which are modular and moveable), the second pad having at least one second antenna element having coils parallel to and supported by a second planar surface of the second pad and not co-planar with the first antenna elements (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraphs [0026],[0045],[0046] / note the generators/elements of one pad can be positioned vertically or otherwise oriented differently); exciting the first antenna elements to generate first magnetic fields or the at least one second antenna element to generate a second antenna element magnetic field (Paragraph [0026]), a model can be used to describe the values of magnetic fluxes at different points within a measurement volume (such as the region 102) due to magnetic fields induced by known sources at known locations (such as sets of field generators) (Paragraph [0038]), wherein the first pad and the second pad define a configured navigation space (102) (Paragraphs [0025],[0026]); transmitting magnetic signals from at least three of the first and second antenna elements or from a device within the configured navigation space (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0053],[0054]); receiving the transmitted magnetic signals at the device (103) or at the at least three of the antenna elements (Paragraph [0030]); and determining a location and orientation of the device based on the received magnetic signals within the configured navigation space (Paragraph [0034]).
Brunner does not disclose exciting the first antenna elements to generate first magnetic fields or the at least one second antenna element to generate a second antenna element magnetic field; measuring the generated first magnetic fields at the at least one second antenna element, or the generated second antenna element magnetic field at the first antenna elements; identifying a location for the at least one second antenna element based on the fixed known locations of the first antenna elements by processing the measured magnetic fields using an iterative Levenberg-Marquardt minimization, triangulation, or trilateration routine.
Govari discloses exciting the first antenna elements (22) to generate first magnetic fields or the at least one second antenna element to generate a second antenna element magnetic field (Paragraph [0067]); measuring the generated first magnetic fields at the at least one second antenna element, or the generated second antenna element magnetic field at the first antenna elements (Paragraphs [0067], [0082]); identifying a location for the at least one second antenna element based on the fixed known locations of the first antenna elements by processing the measured magnetic fields using an iterative Levenberg-Marquardt minimization, triangulation, or trilateration routine (Paragraphs [0067],[0079],[0080] / note the use of orientation angles calculated from three measured magnetic fields is triangulation), (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brunner to include actively determining the relative locations of the radiators (individual antenna elements) instead of relying upon a model to therefore include exciting the first antenna elements to generate first magnetic fields or the at least one second antenna element to generate a second antenna element magnetic field; measuring the generated first magnetic fields at the at least one second antenna element, or the generated second antenna element magnetic field at the first antenna elements; identifying a location for the at least one second antenna element based on the fixed known locations of the first antenna elements by processing the measured magnetic fields using an iterative Levenberg-Marquardt minimization, triangulation, or trilateration routine given the above disclosure and teaching of Govari in order to advantageously be able to recompute the relative locations of the various antenna elements located on the difference pads when such elements are rotated, moved, or otherwise changed in some manner to thereby advantageously minimize errors based upon these changes, and to enhance the accuracy of the determination of the location of the probe in the body (Paragraph [0083]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858