DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 13-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being (a)(1) by van der Weide (US 20170095315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, van der Weide discloses a device comprising: a base substrate (Paragraph [0024]), a plurality of exciter coils coupled to the base substrate (Paragraph [0164]), and a plurality of witness station assemblies coupled to the base substrate (Figure 2), wherein each of the plurality of witness station assemblies defines a sensing axis co-planar with the plurality of exciter coils (Figures 2, 5, Paragraph [0164]).
Regarding claim 2, van der Weide further discloses each of the plurality of exciter coils comprises a central plane, and wherein the sensing axis of each of said plurality of witness station assemblies is co-planar with the central plane of each of the plurality of exciter coils (Figure 2, Paragraph [0164]).
Regarding claim 3, van der Weide further discloses the plurality of exciter coils is operated in three configurations to selectively generate a magnetic flux in three orthogonal directions (Paragraph [0164]).
Regarding claim 11, van der Weide further discloses each of the plurality of witness station assemblies is oriented on the base substrate such that the sensing axis of each of the plurality of witness
station assemblies is orthogonal to magnetic flux generated by the plurality of exciter coils (Figures 3 and 13).
Regarding claim 13, van der Weide further discloses a plurality of switches that control the
direction of current through each of the plurality of exciter coils individually (Figure 12, Paragraph [0165]).
Regarding claim 14, van der Weide further discloses a capacitor coupled to at least one of the plurality of switches. (Paragraph [0166]).
Regarding claim 15, van der Weide further discloses the plurality of exciter coils includes a first exciter coil, a second exciter coil, a third exciter coil, and a fourth exciter coil (Figure 12, Paragraphs [0024], [0165]-[0166]).
Regarding claim 16, van der Weide further discloses the exciter coils are operated in three configurations to selectively generate a magnetic flux in three orthogonal directions (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, van der Weide further discloses in one of the three configurations, current in the first exciter coil, the second exciter coil, the third exciter coil, and the fourth exciter coil travels in the clockwise direction. (Paragraph 0154 “In certain embodiments, when the power of the medical device is activated (e.g., to cut or cauterize) the control unit turns off the magnetic field from the remote activating device, and then turns the magnetic field back on when the power is not activated on the medical device.” The current flow through a coil is inherently either clockwise or counterclockwise.)
Regarding claim 19, van der Weide further discloses a pad and wherein the base substrate, the plurality of exciter coils, and the plurality of witness station assemblies are positioned within the pad (Paragraphs [0032], [0164])
Regarding claim 20, van der Weide further discloses the pad is configured to be positioned beneath a patient (Paragraph [0032], Figure 4)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Weide (US 20170095315 A1) in view of Schneider (US6073043A).
Regarding claim 5, van der Weide does not disclose the plurality of exciter coils includes four exciter coils in a layout of two rows. Schneider teaches that it is known to use four exciter coils as set forth in column 12 lines 26-32 and figure 3 to provide maximum coverage of a square or rectangular area while providing the flexibility of multiple coils to control the current through each one (column 12 lines 26-32). 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 device as taught by van der Weide, with using four coils in a layout of two rows as taught by Schneider, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing maximum magnetic flux coverage of a square or rectangular area when the coils are coplanar, while providing the flexibility of multiple coils, which allow for magnetic flux direction manipulation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der van der Weide (US 20170095315 A1) in view of Atalar (US 20020040185 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Van der Weide does not disclose a balun circuit electrically coupled to the plurality of exciter coils. Atalar discloses a balun circuit may be implemented into the design of both coils to reduce potential RF heating effects and to improve coil performance (Paragraph [0025]). Atalar discloses a balun 112, here depicted as an assembly of coaxial cable approximately 87 cm long. It is understood that a balun circuit may be used to prevent unbalanced shield currents from establishing resonance on the coil, thereby to reduce heating effects (Paragraph [0058]). Atalar discloses the balun circuit may also be used to shield the tuning-matching and decoupling circuits that form part of the interface circuit, in order to reduce signal inhomogeneities generated by the entire assembly and changes in loading conditions (Paragraph [0058]). 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 device as taught by van der Weide, with a balun circuit as taught by Atalar, since such a modification would prevent unbalanced shield currents from establishing resonance on the coil, thereby to reduce heating effects and to reduce signal inhomogeneities generated by the entire assembly and changes in loading conditions (Atalar, Paragraph [0058]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 6-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11540885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims the limitations of 11540885 in broader terms.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4, the prior art did not teach a device with the limitations of claims 1 and 3,
wherein the sensing axis of each of the plurality of witness station assemblies is isolated from the magnetic flux in three orthogonal directions by 50 dB.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach a device with the limitations of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of exciter coils includes a ratio of inductive reactance to resistance of at least 350.
Conclusion
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