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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 17 February 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 1-8 and 10-34 and pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 17 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment. Examiner does acknowledge that Wilson (US20150164725A1) does not explicitly teach the support structure comprises index features comprising one or more pins, protrusions and/or projections, even though Wilson does disclose “the buttons/apertures providing incremental steps for positional indexing of the bridge member” (Paragraph [0073]), which would require the bridge member to have some sort of engagement mechanism for the apertures. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of over Kohli (US20160074674A1) in view of Robar (WO2017063084A1) and further in view of Wilson (US20120186588A1).
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 1-8, 11-16, 20-23, 26-30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli (US20160074674Al) in view of Robar (WO2017063084A1) and further in view of Wilson (US20120186588A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kohli discloses an apparatus for gating delivery of radiation by a radiation delivery system to a patient (Abstract), the apparatus comprising an electrode (Paragraph [0100]) electrically connected to at least one sensor (Paragraph [0092] “bioimpedance monitoring apparatus” ) configured to monitor the at least one electrode (Figure 3) and generate an output signal (Figure 3, Respiratory cycle signal “40”); at least one processor (Figure 1 "20" Signal Processing) configured to receive and process the output signaI (Paragraph [0124]); determine at least one of a computed measure of amplitude or phase of respiration of the patient (Paragraph [0125]); and generate a gating signal for enabling or inhibiting delivery of radiation by the radiation delivery system based on at least one of the determined measure of amplitude or phase of respiration of the patient (Paragraphs [0024], [0070], [0078], [0081], [0114]-[0117], [0125]).
Kohli does not disclose the at least one electrode positionable adjacent to the patient, wherein the at least one electrode does not contact the patient directly or indirectly: further wherein the previously disclosed sensor is a capacitive sensor configured to monitor the capacitance of the at least one electrode; further wherein the previously disclosed output signal is a indicative of the capacitance and wherein the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure that is affixable to a couch of the radiation delivery system. Robar discloses systems and methods for the monitoring of patient motion via the detection of changes in capacitance, as measured using a capacitance position sensing electrode array. Robar further discloses the at least one electrode is positionable adjacent to the patient, wherein the at least one electrode does not contact the patient directly or indirectly (Page 3, lines 13-17). Robar further discloses the sensor is a capacitive sensor configured to monitor the capacitance of the at least one electrode (Page 12, lines 15-17) and the output signal is indicative of the capacitance (Page 12, lines 20-22). Robar further discloses the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure that is affixable to a couch of the radiation delivery system (Page 10, lines 29-30). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Kohli, with replacing the bioimpedance electrode, sensor and output signal with the capacitance electrode, capacitive sensor and the capacitance output signal wherein the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure that is affixable to a couch of the radiation delivery system as taught by Robar, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a position monitoring system that is compatible with radiation treatment (Robar, Page 2, lines 2-5) but does not have the drawbacks of commercial systems (Robar, Page 2, lines 29-31).
Kohli, as modified by Robar, does not disclose the support structure comprises index features comprising one or more pins, protrusions and/or projections configured to engage index elements comprising one or more indexing holes, recesses, receptacles and/or notches on the couch. Wilson discloses a bridge assembly for use with a patient positioning system (Abstract) wherein the bridge assembly is configured to be releasably secured along the side rails (Abstract). Wilson further discloses the patient support panel 22 has a pair of longitudinally extending side rails 22A and 22B (Figures 2 and 3, Paragraph [0053]), the rails comprising indexing apertures (Paragraph [0053]), wherein the side rails enable full indexing of various components (Paragraph [0053]), by use of a push-pin to engage the apertures (Paragraph [0064]). Wilson further discloses that the various positioning/fixation components and/or other accessories can be mounted at any of the discrete index positions or alternatively using a clamping mechanism (Paragraph [0055]). Wilson also discloses that “almost any variety of positioning and/or immobilizing (positioning/fixation) equipment currently on the market that utilizes the pin localizing method can be use on the patient support panel 22 or on the rail frame 200” which informs that the use of aperture and pin mechanism disclosed by Wilson is commonly used to attached various devices to the side of patient supports. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Kohli, with the support structure comprising index features comprising one or more pins, protrusions and/or projections configured to engage index elements comprising one or more indexing holes, recesses, receptacles and/or notches on the couch as taught by Wilson, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing an apparatus that can achieve a wide range of adjustments for a wide range of attachments (Wilson, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Kohli, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the at least one processor is configured to compare the measure of amplitude of the respiration of the patient to a threshold and to generate the gating signal based at least in part on whether the amplitude is greater than the threshold (Paragraph [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Kohli, as modified in claim 1, discloses the at least one processor is configured to compare the measure of amplitude of the respiration of the patient to an amplitude range and to generate the gating signal based at least in part on whether the amplitude is within the amplitude range (Paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 4, Kohli, as modified in claim 1, discloses the at least one processor is configured to process the output signal to determine the measure of phase of respiration of the patient, to compare the determined measure of phase to a phase window, and to generate the gating signal based at least in part on whether the measure of phase is within the phase window (Paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 5, Robar discloses the at least one electrode is essentially transparent to radiation deliverable by the radiation delivery system (Page 20, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 6, Robar discloses the at least one electrode is supported on a substrate. (Pages 16-17 lines 37-1 “dielectric support”).
Regarding claim 7, Robar discloses the substrate is essentially transparent to radiation deliverable by the radiation delivery system (Pages 21 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 8, Robar discloses substrate is made of a carbon fiber composite (Pages 21 lines 6-8) or a plastic. (Pages 24 line 2).
Regarding claim 11, Kohli, as modified by Robar and Wilson in claim 1, discloses the support structure comprises a bridge configured to extend transversely across the couch (Wilson, Figure 1). As Robar discloses the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure (Page 10, lines 29-30) and Wilson discloses the bridge is configured to hold a variety of radiation positioning devices (Paragraph [0008]), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Kohli, with the at least one electrode is supported by the bridge as taught by Robar and Wilson, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of an at least one electrode that can achieve a wide range of adjustments (Wilson, Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 12, Kohli, as modified in claim 1, further discloses the at least one electrode comprises a plurality of electrically conductive pads and a switching network configured to electrically connect selected ones of the conductive pads in parallel to provide the at least one electrode (Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 13, Kohli discloses a method for gating delivery of radiation to a patient by a radiation delivery system (Paragraph [0002] “Embodiments provide apparatus and methods for use in gated radiotherapy”), the method comprising positioning at least one electrode adjacent to a part of a body of the patient of the patient that moves in response to respiration of the patient, (Paragraphs [0080], [0085]; Figures 1A, 1B)) monitoring respiration of the patient by monitoring changes (Paragraph [0124-0125]; and generating a gating signal based on the monitored respiration, the gating signal indicating to enable or inhibit delivery of radiation by the radiation delivery system (Paragraphs [0024], [0070], [0078], [0081], [0114]-[0117], [0125]).
Kohli does not disclose the at least one electrode being spaced apart from the part of the body to form an electrical capacitor, the at least one electrode does not contact the body of the patient directly or indirectly, or monitoring changes in a capacitance of the capacitor, wherein the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure that is affixable to a couch of the radiation delivery system. Robar discloses the at least one electrode being spaced apart from the part of the body to form an electrical capacitor, the at least one electrode does not contact the body of the patient directly or indirectly (Page 3, lines 13-17, Page 11, lines 7-13). Robar further discloses monitoring changes in a capacitance of the capacitor (Pages 2-3, lines 34-1). Robar further discloses the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure that is affixable to a couch of the radiation delivery system (Page 10, lines 29-30). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Kohli, with replacing the bioimpedance electrode, sensor and output signal with the capacitance electrode, capacitive sensor and the capacitance output signal so that the at least one electrode is spaced apart from the part of the body to form an electrical capacitor, allows the system to monitoring changes in a capacitance of the capacitor and wherein the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure that is affixable to a couch of the radiation delivery system as taught by Robar, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a position monitoring method that is compatible with radiation treatment (Robar, Page 2, lines 2-5) but does not have the drawbacks of commercial systems (Robar, Page 2, lines 29-31).
Kohli, as modified by Robar, does not disclose the support structure comprises index features comprising one or more pins, protrusions and/or projections configured to engage index elements comprising one or more indexing holes, recesses, receptacles and/or notches on the couch. Wilson discloses a bridge assembly for use with a patient positioning system (Abstract) wherein the bridge assembly is configured to be releasably secured along the side rails (Abstract). Wilson further discloses the patient support panel 22 has a pair of longitudinally extending side rails 22A and 22B (Figures 2 and 3, Paragraph [0053]), the rails comprising indexing apertures (Paragraph [0053]), wherein the side rails enable full indexing of various components (Paragraph [0053]), by use of a push-pin to engage the apertures (Paragraph [0064]). Wilson further discloses that the various positioning/fixation components and/or other accessories can be mounted at any of the discrete index positions or alternatively using a clamping mechanism (Paragraph [0055]). Wilson also discloses that “almost any variety of positioning and/or immobilizing (positioning/fixation) equipment currently on the market that utilizes the pin localizing method can be use on the patient support panel 22 or on the rail frame 200” which informs that the use of aperture and pin mechanism disclosed by Wilson is commonly used to attached various devices to the side of patient supports. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kohli, with the support structure comprising index features comprising one or more pins, protrusions and/or projections configured to engage index elements comprising one or more indexing holes, recesses, receptacles and/or notches on the couch as taught by Wilson, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing an apparatus that can achieve a wide range of adjustments for a wide range of attachments (Wilson, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Robar discloses the monitoring comprises monitoring changes in the capacitance by sensing the capacitance at a sampling frequency, wherein the sampling frequency is in a range between 2 Hz to 200 Hz (Page 13, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 16, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, further discloses processing an output signal from a sensor (Figure 3) and conditioning the output signal to isolate signal components corresponding to the respiration of the patient (Paragraph [0098]). Kohli does not disclose the sensor is an capacitive sensor. Robar discloses the sensor is a capacitive sensor configured to monitor the capacitance of the at least one electrode (Page 12, lines 15-17) and the output signal is indicative of the capacitance (Page 12, lines 20-22). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Kohli, with replacing the bioimpedance sensor and output signal with the capacitive sensor and the capacitance output signal as taught by Robar, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a position monitoring method that is compatible with radiation treatment (Robar, Page 2, lines 2-5) but does not have the drawbacks of commercial systems (Robar, Page 2, lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 20, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, further discloses the method further comprising generating the gating signal based on one or both of an amplitude and a phase of the monitored respiration (Paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0120]).
Regarding claim 21, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, further discloses the method further comprising determining the phase of the monitored respiration by tracking one or more trends in an output signal of the capacitive sensor (Paragraphs [0118]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 22, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, further discloses the method further comprising setting a gating window based on respiration data of the patient (Paragraphs [0118]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 23, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, further discloses wherein the generating of the gating signal comprises determining whether at least one of a phase or an amplitude of the monitored respiration is within a gating window and dynamically adjusting the gating window based on the monitored respiration (Paragraphs [0115]-[0117], [0120]).
Regarding claim 26, Robar discloses indexing a support structure that supports the at least one electrode to a couch of the radiation delivery system (Figure 2C).
Regarding claim 27, Robar discloses the indexed support structure comprises a substrate that extends transversely to the body of the patient (Figure 2C), wherein the at least one electrode is supported by the substrate (Pages 16-17 lines 37-1 “dielectric support”).
Regarding claim 28, Robar discloses the method further comprising placing the at least one electrode in a location within an area corresponding to a path of a radiation beam wherein the at least one electrode and the substrate are essentially transparent to radiation of the radiation beam (Page 20, lines 22-32, Pages 21 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 29, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, further discloses the method wherein monitoring changes in the capacitance of the capacitor comprises applying a direct current (DC) signal to the at least one electrode (Paragraphs [0076], [0080]).
Regarding claim 30, Robar discloses the method wherein the at least one electrode comprises a plurality of electrodes, the method comprising positioning the plurality of electrodes adjacent to the body of the patient with each of the plurality of electrodes located proximate to a different part of the body of the patient. (Figure 1b, Left ear, right ear, nose, left eye, right eye, etc.).
Regarding claim 33, Wilson discloses the index features include one or more pins that are shaped, formed and/or dimensioned in correspondence with the one or more index elements (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 34, Kohli discloses an apparatus for gating delivery of radiation by a radiation delivery system to a patient (Abstract), the apparatus comprising an electrode (Paragraph [0100]) electrically connected to at least one sensor (Paragraph [0092] “bioimpedance monitoring apparatus” ) configured to monitor the at least one electrode (Figure 3) and generate an output signal (Figure 3, Respiratory cycle signal “40”); at least one processor (Figure 1 "20" Signal Processing) configured to receive and process the output signal (Paragraph [0124]); determine at least one of a computed measure of amplitude or phase of respiration of the patient (Paragraph [0125]); and generate a gating signal for enabling or inhibiting delivery of radiation by the radiation delivery system based on at least one of the determined measure of amplitude or phase of respiration of the patient (Paragraphs [0024], [0070], [0078], [0081], [0114]-[0117], [0125]).
Kohli does not disclose the at least one electrode positionable adjacent to the patient, wherein the at least one electrode does not contact the patient directly or indirectly: further wherein the previously disclosed sensor is a capacitive sensor configured to monitor the capacitance of the at least one electrode; further wherein the previously disclosed output signal is a indicative of the capacitance and wherein the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure. Robar discloses systems and methods for the monitoring of patient motion via the detection of changes in capacitance, as measured using a capacitance position sensing electrode array. Robar further discloses the at least one electrode positionable adjacent to the patient, wherein the at least one electrode does not contact the patient directly or indirectly (Page 3, lines 13-17). Robar further discloses the sensor is a capacitive sensor configured to monitor the capacitance of the at least one electrode (Page 12, lines 15-17) and the output signal is indicative of the capacitance (Page 12, lines 20-22). Robar further discloses the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure (Page 10, lines 29-30). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Kohli, with replacing the bioimpedance electrode, sensor and output signal with the capacitance electrode, capacitive sensor and the capacitance output signal wherein the at least one electrode is supported by a support structure as taught by Robar, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a position monitoring system that is compatible with radiation treatment (Robar, Page 2, lines 2-5) but does not have the drawbacks of commercial systems (Robar, Page 2, lines 29-31).
Kohli, as modified by Robar, does not disclose the support structure comprises index features configured to engage index elements on a couch. Wilson discloses a bridge assembly for use with a patient positioning system (Abstract) wherein the bridge assembly is configured to be releasably secured along the side rails (Abstract). Wilson further discloses the patient support panel 22 has a pair of longitudinally extending side rails 22A and 22B (Figures 2 and 3, Paragraph [0053]), the rails comprising indexing apertures (Paragraph [0053]), wherein the side rails enable full indexing of various components (Paragraph [0053]), by use of a push-pin to engage the apertures (Paragraph [0064]). Wilson further discloses that the various positioning/fixation components and/or other accessories can be mounted at any of the discrete index positions or alternatively using a clamping mechanism (Paragraph [0055]). Wilson also discloses that “almost any variety of positioning and/or immobilizing (positioning/fixation) equipment currently on the market that utilizes the pin localizing method can be use on the patient support panel 22 or on the rail frame 200” which informs that the use of aperture and pin mechanism disclosed by Wilson is commonly used to attached various devices to the side of patient supports. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus as taught by modified Kohali, with a support structure comprising index features configured to engage index elements on a couch as taught by Wilson, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing an apparatus that can achieve a wide range of adjustments (Wilson, Paragraph [0009]).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli (US20160074674A1), Robar (WO2017063084A1), and Wilson (US20120186588A1) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Mostafavi (US6937696B1).
Regarding claim 17-19, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, fails to disclose generating feedback for the patient in the which the feedback is to assist the patient in controlling their breathing by providing the patient with one or more indicators based on an output signal of a capacitive sensor, wherein the feedback comprises one or more of showing the patient by how much their respiration varies from a desired respiration, reminding the patient to hold their breath at a desired point, showing the patient if they are successfully holding their breath, and/or letting the patient know for how much longer they are expected to hold their breath, further wherein the feedback is displayed via a display mounted within a field of view of the patient comprising a bar indicator or a color changing indicator. Mostafavi teaches it is known in the art to provide visual and audio feedback to patient to assist the gating procedure (Col 3 lines 29-44). Mostafavi discloses it is known to use a sensor measure physiological motion of the patient and compare the measured motion to threshold boundaries (Col 12, lines 60-65), the sensor signal is used to provide real-time feedback to the patient to control their breathing by providing the patient with one or more indicators based on an output signal of the sensor (Col 25 lines 53-67). Mostafavi teaches showing the patient by how much their respiration varies from a desired respiration, reminding the patient to hold their breath at a desired point, and showing the patient if they are successfully holding their breath (Figures 16 and 17, Col 25 lines 11-31, lines 60-67 and Col 26, lines 1-30). Mostafavi further teaches displaying the feedback using at least one of a bar indicator (Figures 16 and 17, Col 25 lines 11-31, lines 60-67 and Col 26, lines 1-30), a color changing indicator (Figure 20, Col 26-27 lines 47-7) and a display mounted within a field of view of the patient (Col 25, lines 60-62). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kohli, with using the capacitance signal disclosed by Kohli and Robar to generate feedback for the patient to assist the patient in controlling the patient's breathing as taught by Mostafavi, since such a modification is well known in the art to take a signal from a motion detection sensor and provide feedback to the patient since the feedback provides greater compliance by the patient to the treatment application.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli (US20160074674A1), Robar (WO2017063084A1), and Wilson (US20120186588A1) as applied to claim 13, in view of McGary (US20120041297A1).
Regarding claim 24, Robar teaches it is known that distance between the electrode and the patient affects the capacitance value (Page 11, lines 7-18), but Kohli, as modified in claim 13, fails to disclose the at least one electrode is positioned at a minimum distance of 1 cm to 10 cm away from the part of the body of the patient. McGary discloses a system and method for detecting a position and/or orientation of a magnetic dipole includes a first detector and a second detector, separate and spaced apart from the first detector (Abstract, Claim 20) wherein the detection of the magnetic dipole can be used for position tracking during gated radiation therapy (Paragraph [0020]). McGary discloses the distance of the marker from the detector can be up to 100 cm, or about 10 cm (Paragraph [0045]). As the human body can be interpreted as the marker and the electrode can be the detector, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kohli, with the at least one electrode positioned at a minimum distance of 10 cm away from the part of the body of the patient as taught by McGary, since such a modification would ensure proper signal reception because as the marker (human body) moves farther from the detector (electrode) the signal would decrease (Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 25, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, fails to disclose the method further comprising varying a signal strength of the monitored respiration by adjusting one or both of a distance of the at least one electrode from the body of the patient and an angle of the at least one electrode relative to the body of the patient. McGary discloses a system and method for detecting a position and/or orientation of a magnetic dipole includes a first detector and a second detector, separate and spaced apart from the first detector (Abstract, Claim 20) wherein the detection of the magnetic dipole can be used for position tracking during gated radiation therapy (Paragraph [0020]). McGray discloses the signal of the detector varies based on its distance from the marker (Paragraph [0045]). As the human body can be interpreted as the marker and the electrode can be the detector, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kohli, with the method further comprising varying a signal strength of the monitored respiration by adjusting one or both of a distance of the at least one electrode from the body of the patient and an angle of the at least one electrode relative to the body of the patient as taught by McGary, since such a modification would ensure proper signal reception because as the marker (human body) moves farther from the detector (electrode) the signal would decrease (Paragraph [0045]).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohli (US20160074674A1), Robar (WO2017063084A1), and Wilson (US20120186588A1) as applied to claim 13 and 30, in view of Martin (US9642580B2).
Regarding claim 31, Kohli, as modified in claims 13 and 30, fails to explicitly disclose electrically connecting the plurality of electrodes in parallel. Martin teaches a monitoring device for obtaining data from a patient during a respiratory and/or cardiac cycle of the patient, wherein the monitoring device includes a compliant variable capacitor securely attached to the patient (Abstract). The capacitance of the compliant variable capacitor changes during movement of the patient caused by the respiratory cycle and/or a cardiac cycle, wherein the changing capacitance is used to generate a monitoring signal that includes the frequency, timing and amplitude of either the respiratory or cardiac cycle (Abstract). Martin discloses the electrodes sit on a substrate (Figures 4 and 5, substrate “60” and electrodes “58”). Martin further discloses at least one capacitance sensor electrically connected to the at least one electrode (Figure 6) and configured to monitor a capacitance of the at least one electrode (Figure 6) and generate an output signal indicative of the capacitance ((Figure 6, Col 6, lines 38-67). Martin further discloses electrically connecting the plurality of the electrodes in parallel (Col 2, lines 48-57). The parallel connection of the compliant variable capacitors increases the sensitivity of the movement sensor (Col 2, lines 48-57). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kohli, with electrically connecting the plurality of the electrodes in parallel as taught by Martin, since such a modification would increase the sensitivity of the movement sensor (Col 2, lines 48-57).
Regarding claim 32, Kohli, as modified in claim 13, fails to disclose placing a conductive material on a surface of the body of the patient opposite to the at least one electrode. Martin teaches a monitoring device for obtaining data from a patient during a respiratory and/or cardiac cycle of the patient, wherein the monitoring device includes a compliant variable capacitor securely attached to the patient (Abstract). The capacitance of the compliant variable capacitor changes during movement of the patient caused by the respiratory cycle and/or a cardiac cycle, wherein the changing capacitance is used to generate a monitoring signal that includes the frequency, timing and amplitude of either the respiratory or cardiac cycle (Abstract). Martin further discloses placing a conductive material on a surface of the body of the patient opposite to the at least one electrode (Column 6, lines 3-7). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by modified Kohli, with electrically connecting the plurality of the electrodes in parallel as taught by Martin, since such a modification would increase the sensitivity of the movement sensor (Col 2, lines 48-57).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc D Honrath whose telephone number is (571)272-6219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Charles A Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/M.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights