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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 03/18/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1-17 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12, as well as the addition of new claims 14-17.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “having plurality of sections” should instead read –having a plurality of sections--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the plurality of untuned amplifiers.”
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear which claim it depends from. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as depending from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2014/0187917 (“Clark”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0303414 (“Toth”) and US Patent 3,859,623 (“Koehler”).
Regarding claim 1, Clark teaches [a] catheterization system (Fig. 1, Abstract), comprising: a probe (¶ 0024, Figs. 1 and 2, invasive probe in the form of a catheter 28) including a shaft portion (Fig. 2, body 11, intermediate section 12, and distal section 13) and a distal end assembly coupled to a distal end of the shaft portion (Fig. 2, distal section 13 carrying at least a tip electrode 15 as described in ¶ 0024), wherein the shaft portion includes: an elastic element (¶ 0029, Fig. 3, resilient coupling member 60 comprising a coil spring, the coil spring being a part of joint 54, which is described as being elastic in ¶ 0027) extending along a longitudinal axis of the shaft portion from a first end to a second end (Fig. 3, coupling member 60 being disposed along the longitudinal axis 25); a transmitter, coupled to the first end (Fig. 3, field generator MF, coupled to the distal end of the elastic element by moving, as part of distal portion 13D, based on the deflection facilitated by the elastic element - see ¶¶s 0032, 0027, and 0029) and configured to transmit first signals in a first frequency (¶ 0046 describes field generator MF as transmitting signals at a selected frequency (i.e., a pre-defined frequency) in a range between 16 kHz and 25 kHz); a receiver coupled to the second end (Fig. 3, the coils on the other end of joint 54), the receiver comprising a body having plurality of sections (Fig. 3, the shaft portion having a section for coils S1-S3 and another section for coils Sx and Sy) and a plurality of electromagnetic coils disposed on each of the sections (Fig. 3, coils S1-S3 on one section and Sx and Sy on another section), wherein the receiver is configured to receive the first signals for sensing contact force applied on the distal end assembly (the sensor coils S1, S2, and S3 generate signals, indicative of the pressure exerted by the distal section 13 on the endocardium 70, based on their proximity to the magnetic fields created by MF - ¶¶s 0030-0032. ¶¶s 0027, 0030, 0040, etc. describe the pressure as force (“force sensing”)) and to receive second signals from a magnetic position tracking system for tracking position of the distal end assembly in a patient's body (Fig. 3, ¶¶s 0033, 0034, 0036, etc., coils S1, Sx, and Sy receive signals from external magnetic field generators for generating position data), wherein the second signals are in a plurality of second frequencies that are other than the first frequency of the first signals (¶¶s 0040 and 0046, operating frequencies of position and force sensing are separated in the frequency space, and the frequencies of each field generator are distinguishable); … .
Clark does not appear to explicitly teach a plurality of tuned amplifiers coupled to the plurality of electromagnetic coils, the plurality of tuned amplifiers configured to selectively amplify a plurality of outputs from the plurality of electromagnetic coils in the first frequency; and an untuned amplifier coupled to the plurality of tuned amplifiers and configured to further amplify the plurality of outputs from the electromagnetic coils in the first frequency post amplification with the tuned amplifier and also to amplify the plurality of the second frequencies.
Toth teaches a guidewire comprising a sensing tip, the sensing tip coupled to a high fidelity amplifier located nearby (claim 162), e.g. in a microcircuit (claims 165 and 166). The (plurality of) microcircuits each comprise a recording front end that is located within a few inches of a corresponding sensing element (Fig. 15a, ¶¶s 0362 and 0363 – also see claim 167, describing each sensor as having its own amplifier). Amplifiers may be configured in one or more stages (¶ 0278), and can include preamplification as well as amplification (¶¶s 0318, 0320, 0323, etc., describing preamplification, amplification, etc., with the preamp being part of or connected to the microcircuit that includes the amplifier). Amplification is broadband at least in a first stage/mode (¶ 0278).
Koehler teaches using a preamplifier to pass a narrow range of frequencies for the purpose of filtering out noise from unwanted frequencies (col. 2, lines 44-52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate tuned and untuned amplifiers with each sensor/antenna of Clark (sensor coils S1, S2, S3, Sx, and Sy being antennas) as in Toth, e.g. by first performing tuned amplification using the preamplifier of Toth, as in Koehler, for the purpose of filtering out noise from unwanted frequencies (Koehler: col. 2, lines 44-52). Then, it would have been obvious to perform broadband/untuned amplification in another stage, as contemplated by Toth, for the purpose of amplifying to a final amplitude (Koehler: col. 2, line 65 to co. 4, line 8; Toth: ¶¶s 0278, 0353), for amplifying the sensed signals as close as possible to the source (Toth: ¶ 0207), enabling low-noise recording of even small signals (Toth: ¶ 0276, i.e., increasing signal-to-noise ratio), and for the purpose of minimizing the number of wires needed to extend to the proximal end of the probe (Toth: ¶ 0363). The same motivations apply for using dedicated amplifiers for each sensor/coil.
Regarding claim 2, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches a processor configured to detect the contact force applied on the distal end assembly based on the output in the first frequency and to track the position of the distal end assembly in the patient's body based on the output in the second frequencies (Clark: ¶¶s 0038, 0040, etc., processor 36 processes signals from both first sensor assembly 17 and second sensor assembly 18).
Regarding claim 3, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches wherein each of the plurality of electromagnetic coils is coupled to a corresponding one of the plurality of tuned amplifiers (Toth: ¶¶s 0362 and 0363 describe recording front ends with sensing elements, claim 167 describes each sensor having its own amplifier, and ¶ 0278 describes tuning. It would have been obvious to use a tuned amplifier with each coil of Clark, for the purpose amplifying the sensed signals as close as possible to the source (Toth: ¶ 0207), enabling low-noise recording of even small signals (Toth: ¶ 0276, i.e., increasing signal-to-noise ratio), and for the purpose of minimizing the number of wires needed to extend to the proximal end of the probe (Toth: ¶ 0363)).
Regarding claim 4, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches a processor configured to detect deflection of the first end relative to the longitudinal axis of the elastic element at the second end based on the plurality of outputs from the plurality of electromagnetic coils in the first frequency (Clark: ¶¶s 0038, 0040, etc., processor 36 processes signals from both first sensor assembly 17 and second sensor assembly 18; ¶¶s 0026, 0030, 0032, etc., processing the signals to detect deflection).
Regarding claim 5, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches wherein the tuned amplifier is embedded in the shaft portion of the probe (Toth: ¶ 0318, the preamp is embedded in the guidewire near the electrodes (as are the microcircuits) - also see ¶¶s 0362 and 0363 and claims 162, 165, and 166, describing how the microcircuits and amplifiers are located near the sensors).
Regarding claim 6, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches wherein the plurality of untuned amplifiers are embedded in the shaft portion of the probe (Toth: Fig. 15a, the microcircuits 1503 are embedded in the shaft portion - also see ¶¶s 0362 and 0363 and claims 162, 165, and 166, describing how the microcircuits and amplifiers are located near the sensors).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches the magnetic position tracking system (Clark: Fig. 1), wherein the magnetic position tracking system includes: a plurality of magnetic field generators placed at defined positions external to the patient (Clark: ¶ 0033, Fig. 1, F1, F2, and F3); and a driver circuit configured to drive the magnetic field generators (Clark: ¶ 0033, Fig. 1, driver circuit 38).
Regarding claim 11, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches wherein the transmitter includes an electromagnetic coil (Clark: Fig. 3, MF - also see ¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 17, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim [1], as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches wherein the plurality of electromagnetic coils are arranged on a same plane of the body of the receiver (Clark: Fig. 3, arranged on a longitudinal plane of the receiver portion of the shaft).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark-Toth-Koehler in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0318003 (“Hossack”).
Regarding claim 9, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler further teaches wherein the first frequency [is] in the radio frequency (RF) range (Clark: ¶ 0046, field generator MF generates frequencies in the range between about 16 kHz and 25 kHz, which is the radio-frequency range, as evidenced by ¶ 0007 of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0324911 (“Ohri”) - “Radio-frequency (RF) and microwave (MW) energy are electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges of 3 kilohertz (kHz) to 300 Megahertz (MHz), and 300 MHz to 300 gigahertz (GHz), respectively”), but does not appear to explicitly teach each of the second frequencies being in the RF range.
Hossack teaches using an RF antenna for position tracking (¶ 0063).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second frequencies (e.g. those emitted by F1, F2, and F3, and detected by S1, Sx, and Sy in Clark) in the radio frequency range, as in Hossack, as a simple substitution with predictable results (Clark: ¶ 0046, enabling distinguishing between the signals when they are at different RF frequencies), and as a known means for achieving the purpose (Hossack: ¶ 0063).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark-Toth-Koehler in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0247152 (“Proud”).
Regarding claim 10, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the transmitter includes a dipole radiator.
Proud teaches that dipole antennas can be used instead of magnetic-type antennas for transmit and receive antenna systems (¶ 0274, the transmission being radiation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a dipole radiator/antenna for the transmitter of the combination, as in Proud, as the simple substitution of one known type of transmission antenna (the magnetic one of Clark) for another (the electric one of Proud) with predictable results (generation of an electromagnetic field that can be detected by the coils of Clark).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark-Toth-Koehler in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0062277 (“Friedrich”) and US Patent 6,292,060 (“Yeo”).
Regarding claim 12, Clark-Toth-Koehler teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of tuned amplifiers each include a resonant circuit coupled to a drain of a field effect transistor (FET) and wherein the resonant circuit is tuned to the first frequency.
Friedrich teaches a narrowband amplifier (¶¶s 0036 and 0041, Fig. 4, narrowband amplifier 8) that comprises field effect transistors (Fig. 4, FETs 18-1, 18-2, 23-1, and 23-2, as described in ¶¶s 0041 and 0042) and associated resonant circuits, which are used together to select desired channels (Abstract and ¶¶s 0044 and 0045, describing the resonant frequency being set for selecting the desired channel - also see ¶ 0039, describing matching frequency bands between the transmitter 1 and receiver 4).
Yeo teaches connecting a resonant circuit to the drain of a field effect transistors (col. 1, line 59 to col. 2, line 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this resonant circuit/FET arrangement with the tuned amplifiers of the combination, tuned to the first frequency (as already contemplated by Toth: ¶ 0278 - honing in on key information), for the purpose of enabling selection of a particular frequency band/channel from a range of frequencies, including those outputted by the field generators of Clark, thereby improving detection by enabling specific signal identification (Friedrich: Abstract and ¶¶s 0041-0044, the transistors, together with the resonant circuits, enable channel selection). It would have been obvious to connect the resonant circuit to the drain of the FET, as in Yeo, as a known means of building this type of circuit, and for the purpose of producing a higher amplifier Q and gain (Yeo: col. 1, line 59 to col. 2, line 6).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark-Toth-Koehler-Friedrich-Yeo in view of US Patent Application Publication 2007/0115073 (“Rohde”) and US Patent 4,649,385 (“Aires”).
Regarding claim 13, Clark-Toth-Koehler-Friedrich-Yeo teaches all the features with respect to claim 12, as outlined above. Clark-Toth-Koehler-Friedrich-Yeo does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the resonant circuit includes an inductive coil selected to have a quality factor below 10.
Rohde teaches that inductors used in resonant circuits typically how a low quality factor (¶ 0011).
Aires teaches that the quality factor of a tuned amplifier (and associated components) may be chosen as desired to obtain a flat response over a particular frequency range (i.e., over a desirable band, with undesirable bands still being attenuated – col. 20, lines 51-61).
The quality factor of an inductive coil of a resonant circuit (as well as of the resonant circuit as a whole) is a known results-effective variable because it can be changed as desired to obtain a flat response over a particular frequency range (Aires: col. 20, lines 51-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a typical inductor (e.g. one having a quality factor of below 10) for the inductive coil of the resonant circuit of the combination, 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 through routine experimentation is not inventive. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are allowable over the prior art, but are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims. Therefore, they will be allowed if the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are overcome, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements (i.e., the claim objection) or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the specific arrangement of coils on the receiver, as claimed in claim 14, in combination with all other recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered.
The arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 are not persuasive. The term “receiver” does not connote any particular structure besides the ability to receive signals, which the coils of Clark do. The term “body” only connotes a general physical structure. Thus, the portion of the shaft of Clark holding the coils S1-S3, Sx, and Sy meets the claim language.
All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights