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
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 08/12/2025.
The amendments filed on 08/12/2025 have been entered. Applicant has presently canceled claim 9. Accordingly claims 1, 3-8, and 10-16 are pending. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are presently amended.
The previous objections to claim 1 and 16 have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 16.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments to claims 1, 16 and the canceling of claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/12/2025, with respect to the prior art rejection of the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive, in part, in particular regarding previously relied on secondary reference Acker. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered prior art Plotkin et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3-8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermanis, A., Cacurs, R., & Greitans, M. (2016). Acceleration and magnetic sensor network for shape sensing. IEEE Sensors Journal, 16(5) (hereinafter “Hermanis”) in view of Plotkin et al. (US 2020/0007173, application filed July 2, 2019, hereinafter “Plotkin”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hermanis discloses a System (and corresponding method) for detecting a surface shape of a human or animal body surface (“shape sensing” Title; also see Fig. 16, reproduced below, and corresponding description), which comprises
- a sensor array (1) with a plurality of sensors (“Acceleration/magnetic sensor nodes are arranged in regular grid along the surface.” page 1273; also see “shape sensing sensor array” page 1277), that scan the body surface at a plurality of surface areas and generate a plurality of surface signals associated with the plurality of surface areas (see Fig. 16 and corresponding description),
PNG
media_image1.png
345
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and which system is characterized by
- a plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) in a form of three-dimensional magnetic field sensors which form the sensor array (1) (“A sensor node was designed consisting of acceleration/magnetic sensor LSM303DLHC and low-power microcontroller MSP430G2553 (Fig. 7).” page 1276; also see “3-axis magnetic sensor” in description of Fig. 7 on page 1276) and are arranged with respect to one another so as to rest on the surface of the body (“A network of 63 sensor nodes was experimentally tested. Sensors were arranged in 9 × 7 grid formation and sewed between two layers of fabric with mutual distances 4.8 cm longways and 3.5 cm across (Fig. 8).” page 1276; also see Fig. 16 and corresponding description), wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) are arranged in the sensor array (1) in a regular grid (“Acceleration/magnetic sensor nodes are arranged in regular grid along the surface.” page 1273) and a grid spacing of grid rows is variable (“The sensor equipped fabric was filmed for several minutes with Kinect v2 sensor while performing various continuous deformations such as bending, twisting, etc., to obtain relatively complex and different test shapes.” page 1277; examiner notes that as the sensor equipped fabric is subjected to bending, twisting, etc. the spacing of grid rows will vary; also see page 1273), the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) being designed to generate, from the plurality of surface signals, a plurality of position signals with regard to orientation and position of the plurality of surface areas in the three magnetic fields, thereby determining the surface shape of the body surface from the plurality of position signals (“The method reconstructs shape using orientation sensors distributed in grid like pattern along its surface.” page 1272; also see “Then the rotation matrix R which describes sensor orientation relative to global reference frame can be calculated by: R = MeMTs . (10) Rotation matrix R now can be used to calculate surface segment orientation relative to initial position that corresponds to sensor orientation relative to Earth reference frame.” page 1272).
Although Hermanis discloses three magnetic fields surrounding the sensor array (1) (“Earth magnetic field” page 1271, examiner notes that the earth’s magnetic field is three-dimensional), Hermanis fails to disclose - a magnetic field generator (7), designed as a three-axis magnetic field source, comprising three sources for generating three superimposed magnetic fields in a vicinity of the sensor array (1) and detectable by the plurality of sensors.
However, Plotkin teaches, in the same field of endeavor, - a magnetic field generator (7), designed as a three-axis magnetic field source, comprising three sources for generating three superimposed magnetic fields in a vicinity of the sensor array (1) and detectable by the plurality of sensors (“one or more magnetic field generator assemblies 106, 108, and 110. Although only three magnetic field generator assemblies are shown, the system 100 can include fewer or more magnetic field generator assemblies, as will be described in more detail below. For example, to provide six-degree-of-freedom tracking, the tracking system 100 should include at least one magnetic field generator assembly when the receiver 102 includes a three-axis sensor (e.g., three-axis magnetic sensor). Additional magnetic field generator assemblies can be used to extend the range and accuracy of tracking. When the receiver 102 includes a dual-axis sensor (e.g., dual-axis magnetic sensor), the tracking system 100 should include at least two magnetic field generator assemblies. In embodiments with multiple magnetic field generator assemblies, the magnetic field generator assemblies can be coupled to a common housing (together, the magnetic field generator assemblies, the housing, and other components forming a magnetic field transmitter assembly) or placed individually.” [0051]; also see e.g., Fig. 5B and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the magnetic fields generated by the Earth with magnetic fields generated by a magnetic field generator, since both types of magnetic fields were routinely used in magnetic position and orientation sensor systems, as taught by Plotkin, and since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized routine engineering techniques for switching the source of the three magnetic fields. The rationale would have been to provide stronger and more consistent magnetic fields than those produced by the Earth.
Regarding claim 3, Hermanis further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) of the sensor array (1) are arranged in relation to one another in a deformable sensor plane (“The sensor equipped fabric was filmed for several minutes with Kinect v2 sensor while performing various continuous deformations such as bending, twisting, etc., to obtain relatively complex and different test shapes.” page 1277).
Regarding claim 4, Hermanis further discloses wherein at least a part of the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) of the sensor array (1) are connected in series with each other (see sensor nodes connected in series with each other in Fig. 6, reproduced below, and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image2.png
212
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hermanis further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) of the sensor array (1) are mounted in or on a textile material (“The goal of this paper is to propose a theoretically and experimentally validated method for portable real-time shape sensing applicable in fields such as smart textile and flexible electronics.” page 1272; also see “A network of 63 sensor nodes was experimentally tested. Sensors were arranged in 9 × 7 grid formation and sewed between two layers of fabric with mutual distances 4.8 cm longways and 3.5 cm across (Fig. 8).” page 1276).
Regarding claim 6, Hermanis further discloses wherein the textile material is stretchable (“This paper presents a method for real-time shape sensing of thin and flexible materials, such as fabric.” Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Hermanis although further suggests wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) are designed as Hall or as magnetoresistive sensors (“A sensor node was designed consisting of acceleration/magnetic sensor LSM303DLHC and low-power microcontroller
MSP430G2553 (Fig. 7). LSM303DLHC is used for orientation estimation as described in section II.” page 1276; also see “magnetometers” Abstract), Hermanis does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) are designed as Hall or as magnetoresistive sensors.
However, Plotkin further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) are designed as Hall or as magnetoresistive sensors (“For example, the receiver 102 may include a magnetic field sensor such as inductive sensing coils and/or various sensing elements such as magneto-resistive (MR) sensing elements (e.g., anisotropic magneto-resistive (AMR) sensing elements, giant magneto-resistive (GMR) sensing elements, tunneling magneto-resistive (TMR) sensing elements, Hall effect sensing elements, colossal magneto-resistive (CMR) sensing elements, extraordinary magneto-resistive (EMR) sensing elements, spin Hall sensing elements, and the like), giant magneto-impedance (GMI) sensing elements, and/or flux-gate sensing elements.” [0054]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the magnetometer used by Hermanis with the Hall and/or magnetoresistive sensor taught by Plotkin, since such magnetic field sensors were routinely used in the art, and since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized routine engineering techniques for switching the type of magnetic field sensor. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results of performing magnetic field sensing (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Hermanis further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) comprise two or more sensor units designed and arranged for a three-dimensional measurement (“A network of 63 sensor nodes was experimentally tested. Sensors were arranged in 9 × 7 grid formation and sewed between two layers of fabric with mutual distances 4.8 cm longways and 3.5 cm across (Fig. 8).” page 1276; also see “A method is based on three-axial acceleration and magnetic sensor nodes” Abstract; also see Fig. 4 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 16, although Hermanis discloses e.g., a spacing of 35 mm between the magnetic field sensors (“mutual distances 4.8 cm longways and 3.5 cm across” page 1276), Hermanis does not explicitly disclose wherein the grid rows of variable spacing define a distance between the magnetic field sensors (2) in a range of 1 mm to 500 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a range of 1 mm to 500 mm for the spacing between the magnetic field sensors, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally providing a range of 1 mm to 500 mm for the spacing of the sensors would allow for adaptability depending on the area of the body surface being examined. Applicant has not disclosed any criticality of this range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Hermanis further discloses wherein the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) are mounted in or on a textile material which is placed on the body surface in such a way that the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) come to lie on the plurality of surface regions of the body surface (“The goal of this paper is to propose a theoretically and experimentally validated method for portable real-time shape sensing applicable in fields such as smart textile and flexible electronics.” page 1272; also see “A network of 63 sensor nodes was experimentally tested. Sensors were arranged in 9 × 7 grid formation and sewed between two layers of fabric with mutual distances 4.8 cm longways and 3.5 cm across (Fig. 8).” page 1276; also see Fig. 16 and corresponding description), the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) aligned according to an orientation and position of an associated surface region of the plurality of surface regions (“The sensor equipped fabric was filmed for several minutes with Kinect v2 sensor while performing various continuous deformations such as bending, twisting, etc., to obtain relatively complex and different test shapes.” page 1277; also see Fig. 16 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 14, Hermanis further discloses wherein the textile material is stretched over the body surface so that a predetermined distance of the plurality of magnetic field sensors (2) from each other changes (“The sensor equipped fabric was filmed for several minutes with Kinect v2 sensor while performing various continuous deformations such as bending, twisting, etc., to obtain relatively complex and different test shapes.” page 1277; also see Fig. 16 and corresponding description; also see “Acceleration/magnetic sensor nodes are arranged in regular grid along the surface. The model of the surface is divided in n rigid segments, where n = i · j is the total number of sensors used, so that the segment structure corresponds to the structure of the sensor grid (i and j denote row and column of sensor location in the grid). Each segment is described by four direction vectors, denoted by N➔ [i, j ], E➔[i, j ], S➔[i, j ] and W➔ [i, j ] and segment center point C[i, j ]. The segment center points are the surface control points which will define the surface geometry. Initially all segments are aligned with global reference system by assigning some base direction vector values such as [...] where L₁ is the distance between sensors longways and L₂ is the distance between sensors across in the actual grid. In Fig. 1 the structure of the surface model can bee seen. During shape reconstruction the base direction vectors of each segment are translated according to corresponding sensor orientation.” page 1273).
Regarding claim 15, Hermanis further discloses wherein a digital data set (8) of a peripheral surface of the human or animal body surface is created from the plurality of position signals (“The data from Kinect and shape sensing sensor array were simultaneously sent to
desktop computer using standard communication interfaces (USB 3.0 and Bluetooth) with 10 Hz frame rate. Along each data frame time stamps where sent to ensure time synchronization of obtained data frames.” page 1277; also see Figs. 12 and 16 and corresponding descriptions).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermanis in view of Plotkin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Olson (US 2018/0153436, June 7, 2018).
Regarding claim 10, Hermanis modified by Plotkin discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the magnetic field generator (7) generates a magnetic field of strength 10nT to 100mT in the vicinity of the sensor array (1). Examiner notes that Hermanis discloses using the Earth’s magnetic field which has a strength in the claimed range.
However, Olson teaches, in an analogous field of endeavor (e.g. magnetic position sensor e.g. see Title), wherein the magnetic field generator (7) generates a magnetic field of strength 10nT to 100mT in the vicinity of the sensor field (1) (“In some embodiments, the active magnetic position sensor 32 can operate in a magnetic field with a magnetic field strength in a range from 1μT to 70 μT. In an example, the magnetic position sensor 32 can operate in a magnetic field with a magnetic field strength in a range from 1μT to 20 μT” [0027]; also see “The active magnetic position sensor can generate the signal in response to being disposed in a magnetic field, which can be generated by a magnetic field generator. In some embodiments, the magnetic field generator can be in communication with the magnetic positioning system.” [0057]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hermanis with wherein the magnetic field generator (7) generates a magnetic field of strength 10nT to 100mT in the vicinity of the sensor field (1) as taught by Olson, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Providing a magnetic field with the claimed strength using a magnetic field generator would result in a magnetic field that is less variable. Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for this limitation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermanis in view of Plotkin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Irish et al. (US 9,924,921 B1, March 27, 2018, hereinafter “Irish”).
Regarding claim 11, Hermanis modified by Plotkin discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the sensor array (1) comprises a further plurality of pressure and/or temperature sensors adapted to determine a signal corresponding to a pressure and/or a temperature at the plurality of surface areas.
However, Irish teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the sensor array (1) comprises a further plurality of pressure and/or temperature sensors adapted to determine a signal corresponding to a pressure and/or a temperature at the plurality of surface areas (“Electronic joint monitoring system 300 may include various sensors, such as, for example, acoustic sensor(s) 342, accelerometer(s) 344, gyroscope(s) 346, and magnetic field sensor(s) 348. Electronic joint monitoring system 300 may also include other sensors (not shown in FIG. 3), such as proximity sensor(s), temperature sensor(s), humidity sensor(s), biometric sensor(s), motion sensor(s), etc. Acoustic sensor(s) 342 may be used to detect a snapping sound occurring in the joint region and/or to determine the location of the origin of the snapping sound. As used herein, a joint region may refer to a region within a body of a wearer of the electronic joint monitoring system and within a threshold distance of a joint, such as the hip joint. The threshold distance may be different for different joints, and may be adjusted based on the wearer of the electronic joint monitoring system. Sensors, such as accelerometer(s) 344, gyroscope(s) 346, magnetic field sensor(s) 348, optical sensor(s), ultrasonic sensor(s), barometer pressure sensor(s), or any combination thereof, may be used to determine or track the positions of different body parts associated with the joint. The sensors may be provisioned by the wearer or a medical personnel after electronic joint monitoring system 300 is attached to the wearer.” col. 9, ll. 13-40; also see Fig. 6, reproduced below, and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image3.png
580
277
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hermanis with wherein the sensor array (1) comprises a further plurality of pressure and/or temperature sensors adapted to determine a signal corresponding to a pressure and/or a temperature at the plurality of surface areas as taught by Irish in order to provide a more robust monitoring of a subject by the use of varied sensors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0000367 Oren et al. also teaches the claimed magnetic field generator in e.g., [0043].
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 AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights