DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “doppler” should be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim element(s):
1. interface module configured for identifying
2. interface module configured for determining
is/are a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function:
1. identifying
2. determining
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, “interface module” is indefinite as per 112f above.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, “interface module” is indefinite as per 112f above.
Regarding claim 15, “predetermined lookup table” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meftah (US 2021/0077198, of record) in view of Rao (US 2022/0196824, of record) in view of Porat (US 10014960).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, Meftah discloses a surgical radar system and method ([0017]: “radar”), comprising: one or more radar modules configured for transmitting a radio frequency (RF) signal at an initial frequency ([0016]: “a set of radars…emit RF signals in the area of interest”); a first beacon configured for receiving the RF signal at the initial frequency and phase shifting the RF signal from the initial frequency to a first frequency; a second beacon configured for receiving the RF signal at the initial frequency and phase shifting the RF signal from the initial frequency to a second frequency different from the first frequency ([0016], [0017]: “each beacon imposes a unique frequency shift to the incoming radar signal”). Meftah does not explicitly disclose an interface module configured for determining a physical distance between the first beacon and the second beacon based on a phase shift between the first frequency and the second frequency. However, Meftah does teach triangulating from the beacons the actual three-dimensional locations of the RF beacons ([0018]) and that a distance with respect to at least two RF beacons are accounted for ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the determination distance between beacons, as to provide a robust tracking of anatomy during a surgical procedure. Meftah does not explicitly disclose that the first and second beacons comprise a phase shifter configured to phase shift the RF signal from the initial frequency to respective ones of the first frequency and the second frequency based on a respective frequency identified by a lookup table. However, Rao teaches a phase shifter wherein phase shifts are stored in a lookup table ([0044], [0045]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the phase shifter and lookup table of Rao to the radar system of Meftah, as to provide a conventional and robust means of phase shifting a signal. Neither Meftah nor Rao explicitly disclose an interface module configured for identifying each of the first beacon and the second beacon using the lookup table based on a first response with the first frequency from the first beacon and a second response with the second frequency from the second beacon. However, Porat teaches using a frequency lookup table to identify different beacons in determining the relative positions of the different beacons (10:15-28). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the determination of Porat to the system of Meftah and Rao, as to provide robust identification of signal transmitting units.
Regarding claim 3, Meftah discloses that a single radar module from the one or more radar modules is configured for receiving the RF signal at the first frequency from the first beacon and the RF signal at the second frequency from the second beacon ([0016]…[0018]).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Meftah discloses that the one or more radar modules are positioned in a configuration for acquiring locations of the first beacon and the second beacon via position triangulation ([0018]: “triangulation”).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Meftah does not explicitly disclose that the physical distance between the first beacon and the second beacon is determined using both the locations of the first beacon and second beacon, and a phase shift between the first frequency and the second frequency. However, Meftah does teach triangulating from the beacons the actual three-dimensional locations of the RF beacons using a phase shift between the different beacons ([0018]) and that a distance with respect to at least two RF beacons are accounted for ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the determination distance between beacons, as to provide a robust tracking of anatomy during a surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 6, while Meftah does not explicitly disclose the recited antenna and RF components, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional and well-known elements of RF electronics as it suits the well-known needs of RF communications, as to provide common functionality to an RF beacon.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Meftah discloses that the interface module is configured for use during a surgery, wherein the first beacon is disposed on a first anatomical portion of a body and the second beacon is disposed on a second anatomical portion of the body ([0076]…[0079]). Meftah does not explicitly disclose that the physical distance is used for determining a distance between the first and second anatomical portions of the body. However, Meftah does teach triangulating from the beacons the actual three-dimensional locations of the RF beacons ([0018]) and that a distance with respect to at least two RF beacons are accounted for ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the determination distance between beacons, as to provide a robust tracking of anatomy during a surgical procedure.
Regarding claim 12, Meftah discloses prior to determining the phase shift, receiving the RF signals at the first frequency and the second frequency at one or more radar modules of the radar system; and determining a doppler shift between the first frequency and the second frequency based on the phase shift ([0017], [0018]: “Doppler”).
Regarding claim 13, Meftah discloses determining the physical distance between the first beacon and the second beacon comprises: determining a first location of the first beacon and a second location of the second beacon using position triangulation via a plurality of radar modules disposed within a surgical room ([0016]…[0018]). Meftah does not explicitly disclose using the first location and the second location and a calculated doppler shift to determine the physical distance. However, Meftah does teach triangulating from the beacons the actual three-dimensional locations of the RF beacons ([0018]) and that a distance with respect to at least two RF beacons are accounted for ([0079]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the determination distance between beacons, as to provide a robust tracking of anatomy during a surgical procedure.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meftah (US 2021/0077198, of record) in view of Rao (US 2022/0196824, of record) in view of Porat (US 10014960), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Weckerle (US 2009/0243931, of record).
Regarding claim 2, Meftah discloses a controller configured for interfacing the one or more radar modules with the first beacon and the second beacon ([0016]…[0018]). Neither Meftah, Rao, nor Porta, explicitly disclose that first and second frequencies are determined via a lookup table stored within the controller. However, Weckerle teaches that phase shifts for radar antenna units can be stored in a lookup table ([0010], [0011]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the lookup table of Weckerle to the radar system of Meftah, Rao, and Porat, as to provide a conventional manner of recalling information.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Meftah discloses that each of the first beacon and the second beacon comprises a radio frequency integrated circuit (RFIC) ([0089]: “circuit board 64”). Neither Meftah, Rao, nor Porta, explicitly disclose that the RFIC has a lookup table and each value of phase shift from the initial frequency to the first frequency and the second frequency is determined based on the lookup table. However, Weckerle teaches that phase shifts for radar antenna units can be stored in a look-up table ([0010], [0011]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the look up table of Weckerle to the radar system of Meftah and Rao, as to provide a conventional manner of recalling information.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, neither Meftah, Rao, nor Porta, explicitly disclose that the phase shifting is performed by the RFIC based on the lookup table. However, Weckerle teaches that phase shifts for radar antenna units can be stored in a look-up table ([0010], [0011]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the look up table of Weckerle to the radar system of Meftah and Rao, as to provide a conventional manner of recalling information.
Claim(s) 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meftah (US 2021/0077198, of record) in view of Rao (US 2022/0196824, of record) in view of Porat (US 10014960), as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, in view of Lal (US 2009/0062900, of record).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, neither Meftah, Rao, nor Porat, explicitly disclose that each beacon is implantable and encapsulated in a biocompatible shell. However, Lal teaches an implanted medical device with an RF transceiver that communicates with an external receiver ([0052]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the implantable configuration of Lal to the beacons of Meftah, Rao, and Porat, as to provide the ability for a beacon to be implanted within a patient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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 on (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.
/JASON M IP/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793