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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5, 14-16, 20-21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010/0210938 to Verard et al. “Verard”, in view of US2016/0278746 to Hancu et al. “Hancu”, further in view of 2020/0107726 to Salazar et al. “Salazar”, and further in view of NPL: “Shape reconstruction for wire-driven flexible robots based on Bézier curve and electromagnetic positioning” to Song et al. “Song”.
Regarding claim 1 and 15, Verard discloses a system and method for magnetic tracking of a flexible device, which is a flexible catheter device or another flexible elongated device, said flexible device comprising an elongated flexible body (Paragraph 0034, method for navigating a catheter; Abstract, track the location of the instrument in a region of the patient; wherein the instrument is a flexible, elongated catheter, Ref. 52, in Figs. 4A and 4B; Abstract, image guided navigation system with tracking device), the method comprising:
a. receiving by a host server (workstation 34 with coil array controller 48, See Fig. 1) a plurality of sensed values of a local magnetic field (Paragraph 0071, these induced signals form the catheter 52 are delivered to the navigation probe interface 50, and then the coil array controller 48, which as seen in Fig. 48 is part of workstation 34, to control the processing of the navigation and localization, Paragraph 0078) sensed by a respective plurality of sensors (localization sensors 58, see Fig. 4b; Paragraph 0071, the electromagnetic, EM, fields generated in the patient space induces currents in sensors 58 positioned in the catheter 52, wherein the inducing of the currents in the sensor 58, reads on the sensor 58 sensing the EM field in the patient space), the sensors are located at corresponding multiple locations along the elongated flexible body of said flexible device (Paragraph 0072, multiple location sensors 58 fixed to the catheter body and spaced axially from one another along the distal segment of catheter 52; Also see Fig. 4b), wherein the sensed values are at least partially due to at least one magnetic field (Paragraph 0071, electromagnetic fields in the patient space) generated by at least one magnetic field generator (Paragraph 0071, transmitter coil array 46); and
b. calculating by the host serve (workstation 34 with coil array controller 48, See Fig. 1), based on the sensed magnetic field values and source amplitude and frequency of each generated magnetic field, an estimation of a curve localization of said elongated flexible body (Paragraph 0122, When the EM catheter 52 penetrates a specific region in the anatomy, such as a vein, it is possible to store the location of the sensors 58, along the path by collecting the sensor data…A virtual 3D curve can be built..Using known pattern recognition or distance map algorithms, it is then possible to locate and find the specific shape of that curve in a scan or image to get a path registration; see also Fig. 15A, and 15B and Paragraph 0123, showing catheter 238 with a plurality of sensors EM sensors 58 along the length of the catheter 238, and determining the curve shape of the catheter, represented as Ref. 242), wherein said calculating comprises imposing shape constraints of the elongated flexible body of said flexible device in a localization algorithm (Paragraph 0109, the estimated curve is determined by use of known curve fitting algorithms that are adjustable based upon the type of catheter used and based upon the flexibility and material of the catheter, wherein the curve fitting algorithm would read on the localization algorithm, and the information regarding the catheter type and flexibility of material reads on the shape constraints).
However, Verard does not disclose wherein the sensor coils are digital magnetometers.
Hancu teaches in the same field of magnetic tracking systems teaches digital magnetometers (Paragraph 0016: ". One embodiment utilizes an IMU that includes at least three accelerometers, three gyroscopes, and three magnetometers along three orthogonal axes" - it is known to one having ordinary skill in the art that and IMU inertial measurement unit is an electronic device that measures and reports an orientation of the, using a combination of accelerometers, gyroscopes, and sometimes magnetometers) and calculating a three-dimensional position and orientation (Paragraph 0014: "Embodiments of the improved system include a real-time tracking and navigation technique which provides precise, continuous, virtual three-dimensional (3D) visualization of the surgical instruments .. .)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the before the time of the effective filing date, to replace the analog sensing coils of Verard, with the digital magnetometers on the IMU sensor as taught by Hancu, since IMUs are inexpensive (Paragraph 0031) and have other sensing mechanisms such as accelerometers and gyroscopes packaged collectively as a unit (Paragraph 0016).
However, the modifications of Verard and Hancu do not explicitly disclose the magnetic field is an alternating magnetic field.
Salazar teaches wherein the magnetic field is an alternating magnetic field (Paragraph 0017-0018, an alternating electromagnetic field generated by field generators 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard and Hancu, wherein the magnetic field is an alternating magnetic field, as taught by Salazar, since Salazar teaches that the alternating magnetic field may generate electrical current in the coil, and this electrical current may be communicated along the electrical conduit(s) in navigation guidewire (40) and further to processor (Paragraph 0018), which is the same mechanism that Verard teaches above, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the magnetic field generated by Verard is an alternating magnetic field.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, and Salazar do not disclose incorporating the sensed magnetic field values and source values of each generated magnetic field in a localization algorithm and performing curve optimization based on the incorporated values and said imposed shape constraints, to determine said estimation of said curve localization of said elongated flexible body.
Song teaches incorporating the sensed magnetic field values and source values of each generated magnetic field in a localization algorithm (Page 29-30, Section 3. Electromagnetic tracking algorithm, that take into account the transmitting and sensing magnetic field to determine the location of the position and orientation of the sensing coil on the flexible manipulator as shown in Fig. 1) and performing curve optimization (Page 30, Section 4. Curve shape reconstruction method) based on the incorporated values (the reconstruction uses the determined position and orientation of the sensing coil which calculated form the transmitting and sensing field values) and said imposed shape constraints (Bezier curve shape constraint, as calculated on Page 30, right column to the top of Page 31), to determine said estimation of said curve localization of said elongated flexible body (Page 31, Section 4.2 Shape reconstruction method, “Based on the curve reconstruction result, each joint’s position can then be estimated based on equation 5, with equation 1. Therefore, the shape reconstruction of the robot is achieved; wherein the “robot” is the flexible elongated portion of the device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Song, wherein in localizing the curve of the catheter, the method includes incorporating the sensed magnetic field values and source values of each generated magnetic field in a localization algorithm and performing curve optimization based on the incorporated values and said imposed shape constraints, to determine said estimation of said curve localization of said elongated flexible body, as taught by Song, in order to be able to reconstruction the curve/shape of a flexible device without the need to use kinematic based models and thus no prior payload or force information is needed (Page 29, right column).
Regarding claim 2, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
As disclosed in the claim 1 rejection above, Verard teaches the position sensors are located along said flexible device, on at least one of said body of said flexible device (Fig. 4B, Ref. 58), and Song teaches the EM sensor is on said tip (Fig. 1), and Hancu teaches the position/EM sensors are digital magnetometers.
Regarding claim 4, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song discloses all the features of claim 1 above.
Hancu teaches wherein the host server (host computer of the real time tracking system, Paragraph 0037) is calibrated with initial orientations and positions of the plurality of digital magnetometers (initial calibration of the tip of the biopsy tools and fiducials (Paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the host server is calibrated with initial orientations and positions of the plurality of digital magnetometers (initial calibration of the tip of the biopsy tools and fiducials, as taught by Hancu, in order to determine a transformation matrix that links the two reference frames, and also correct for susceptibility induced magnetic field changes (Hancu, Paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 5, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
Verard discloses wherein the shape constraints include information about rigidity and/or flexibility limitations of the elongated flexible body (Paragraph 0109, the estimated curve is determined by use of known curve fitting algorithms that are adjustable based upon the type of catheter used and based upon the flexibility and material of the catheter).
Regarding claim 14, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
Hancu discloses incorporating physical distortion model in the localization algorithm, to compensate for dynamic magnetic distortions (Paragraph 0020, the algorithm models for drift and bias of the IMU, wherein the algorithm is for determining the position, velocity and orientation of the sensors).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein said calculating comprises incorporating physical distortion model in the localization algorithm, to compensate for dynamic magnetic distortions, as taught by Hancu, in order to refine the mapping of the at least one magnetic field (Paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 16, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 15 above.
As disclosed in the claim 15 rejection above, Verard teaches the position sensors are located along said flexible device, on at least one of said body of said flexible device (Fig. 4B, Ref. 58), and Song teaches the EM sensor is on said tip (Fig. 1), and Hancu teaches the position/EM sensors are digital magnetometers.
Regarding claim 20, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 15 above.
Verard discloses a communication bus configured to carry the sensed values from the plurality of sensors towards the server (See Fig. 1, line connecting probe 52 with sensor 58, to the interface 50, which is then connected to controller 48; These induced signals from the catheter 52 are delivered to the navigation probe interface 50 and subsequently forwarded to the coil array controller 48).
Regarding claim 21, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 20 above.
Verard teaches wherein the communication bus includes up to four wire lines that may carry the sensed values digital data from and provide power to the plurality of digital magnetometers (Fig. 1, one line going from probe 52 to interface 50, and a second line going from interface 50 to controller 48; Paragraph 0071, wherein the interface 50 includes amplifies required to interface with the sensor 58, which reads on sending power, i.e. amplified power, to sensor 58).
Regarding claim 25, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 15 above.
Verard discloses wherein the at least one generator comprises one or more transmitting coils which generate EM fields of different geometry (Paragraph 0071, transmitter coil array 46, wherein the term array defines a plurality of coils; coil array controller 48 drives each coil in the transmitter coil array 46 in a time division multiplex or a frequency division multiplex manner. In this regard, each coil may be driven separately at a distinct time or all of the coils may be driven simultaneously with each being driven by a different frequency; driving the array of coils in different combinations would read on different geometries).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 11, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verard, in view of Hancu, further in view of Salazar, and further in view of Song, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US20180042683 to Cohen et al. “Cohen”.
Regarding claim 3, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song discloses all the features of claim 1 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose minimizing the energy function in determining the shape of the probe.
Cohen et al. teaches calculating the shape of a sheath and probe, wherein as seen in Fig. 5, the probe is flexible. Cohen teaches for both a probe curve and a sheath curve, minimizing the modified cost function (Paragraph 0071), wherein the cost function has an intrinsic energy score (Paragraph 0099).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein in determining or localizing the curve of the prove, an energy function is minimized, as taught by Cohen, in order to determine a result of a shape with a minimum cost, which equates to a best match (Cohen, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 10, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the localization algorithm describes the curve of the elongated flexible body with an energy function that encodes the shape constraints of the elongated flexible body.
Cohen teaches calculating the shape of a sheath and probe, wherein as seen in Fig. 5, the probe is flexible. Cohen teaches wherein the localization algorithm describes the curve of the elongated flexible body with an energy function (See Paragraphs 0089-0095) that encodes the shape constraints of the elongated flexible body.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the localization algorithm describes the curve of the elongated flexible body with an energy function that encodes the shape constraints of the elongated flexible body, as taught by Cohen, in order to determine a result of a shape with a minimum cost or energy, which equates to a best match (Cohen, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 11, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the host server is configured to fit the curve to measurements of the magnetometers, by minimizing errors of the measurements and of the curve.
Cohen teaches wherein the position and orientation errors measured from the sensors are part of the cost functio0n (Paragraph 0086), and minimizing the cost function (Paragraph 0071), wherein minimizing the cost function would minimize the errors.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the host server is configured to fit the curve to measurements of the magnetometers, by minimizing errors of the measurements and of the curve, as taught by Cohen, in order to determine a result of a shape with a minimum cost or energy, which minimizes the errors, (Paragraph 0086) which equates to a best match of the shape determination (Cohen, Paragraph 0097).
Regarding claim 17, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song discloses all the features of claim 15 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose minimizing the energy function in determining the shape of the probe.
Cohen et al. teaches calculating the shape of a sheath and probe, wherein as seen in Fig. 5, the probe is flexible. Cohen teaches for both a probe curve and a sheath curve, minimizing the modified cost function (Paragraph 0071), wherein the cost function has an intrinsic energy score (Paragraph 0099).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein in determining or localizing the curve of the prove, an energy function is minimized, as taught by Cohen, in order to determine a result of a shape with a minimum cost, which equates to a best match (Cohen, Paragraph 0097).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verard, in view of Hancu, further in view of Salazar, and further in view of Song, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20100121174 to Osadchy et al. “Osadchy”.
Regarding claim 6, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
As disclosed in the claim 1 rejection above, Hancu teaches wherein the position sensors are digital magnetometers.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the shape constraints include known structural relationships between the positions and orientations of the position sensors along the elongated flexible body of said flexible device.
Osadchy teaches wherein the sensors can be three-axis magnetic sensors that provide position and complete orientation (Paragraph 0023). Osadchy teaches using a probe model that describes the structure and physical properties of the probe (Paragraph 0034), wherein the model includes the position and orientation of the segments in between each of the position sensors (Paragraph 0024), and the model is used to determine the best match between calculated and measured positions and orientations of each of the sensors to determine the curvature of the probe (Paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the shape constraints include known structural relationships between the positions and orientations of the position sensors along the elongated flexible body of said flexible device, as taught by Osadchy, in order to be able to use the constraint/model to determine a minimal cost function with respect to shape that can be assume by the probe in the body (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
As disclosed in the claim 1 rejection above, Hancu teaches wherein the position sensors are digital magnetometers.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the shape constraints include known structural relationships between the positions and orientations of the position sensors along the elongated flexible body of said flexible device.
Osadchy teaches wherein the shape constraints include fixed and known orientations and distances of each sensor relative to its adjacent sensor (Paragraph 0023). Osadchy teaches using a probe model that describes the structure and physical properties of the probe (Paragraph 0034), wherein the model includes the position and orientation of the segments in between each of the position sensors (Paragraph 0024), and the model is used to determine the best match between calculated and measured positions and orientations of each of the sensors to determine the curvature of the probe (Paragraph 0024). Knowing the orientation of the segment in between two adjacent sensors, would also allow one to know the positions and orientations of the two adjacent sensors, and the positions are set/defined in the model, which would read on the claimed fixed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the shape constraints include fixed and known orientations and distances of each sensor relative to its adjacent sensor, as taught by Osadchy, in order to be able to use the constraint/model to determine a minimal cost function with respect to shape that can be assume by the probe in the body (Abstract).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verard, in view of Hancu, further in view of Salazar, and further in view of Song, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2003/0055317 to Taniguchi et al. “Taniguchi”.
Regarding claim 7, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song discloses all the features of claim 1 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the shape constraints include approximation of the shape of the elongated flexible body as a set of line segments, each line segment connecting between two of the plurality of digital magnetometers.
Taniguchi teaches wherein the shape constraints include approximation of the shape of the elongated flexible body as a set of line segments, each line segment connecting between two of the plurality of digital magnetometers (Paragraph 0323, calculation of vectors at any points on two sources coils are calculated to complete the model for determining the shape of the endoscope, wherein the vector would read on a segment between two coils).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the shape constraints include approximation of the shape of the elongated flexible body as a set of line segments, each line segment connecting between two of the plurality of digital magnetometers, as taught by Taniguchi, in order to model the shape of the endoscope in three dimensional space (Paragraph 0322).
Regarding claim 9, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the shape constraints further include smoothness constraints of the shape of the elongated flexible body.
Taniguchi teaches in determining a three-dimensional image of the shape of the endoscope, smoothing is applied in determining the surfaces of the shape of the endoscope (Paragraph 0323).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the shape constraints further include smoothness constraints of the shape of the elongated flexible body, as further taught by Taniguchi, in order to smooth the surface estimation/modeling of the shape of the elongated flexible body, since they the method derived the surfaces from linear vectors (Paragraph 0322-323).
Claim(s) 12 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verard, in view of Hancu, further in view of Salazar, and further in view of Song, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US2007/0078334 to Scully et al. “Scully”.
Regarding claim 12, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
As disclosed in the claim 1 rejection above, Hancu teaches the magnetic sensor is a digital magnetometer.
However, the modification Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose wherein the magnetic sensor is a DC magnetic sensor.
Scully teaches wherein the magnetic sensor is a DC magnetic sensor (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the magnetic sensor is a DC magnetic sensor, as taught by Scully, in order to be able to be used in medical environments rich in conductive metals, which would lead to distortions using AC magnetic technology (Paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 26, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
As disclosed in the claim 1 rejection above, Hancu teaches the magnetic sensor is a digital magnetometer.
However, the modification Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose wherein the magnetic sensor is a DC magnetic sensor.
Scully teaches wherein the magnetic sensor is a DC magnetic sensor (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein the magnetic sensor is a DC magnetic sensor, as taught by Scully, in order to be able to be used in medical environments rich in conductive metals, which would lead to distortions using AC magnetic technology (Paragraph 0025).
Claim(s) 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verard, in view of Hancu, further in view of Salazar, and further in view of Song, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of US2003/0055317 to “Leichner”.
Regarding claim 13, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 1 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein a plurality of said digital magnetometers are located on a same digital communication bus.
Leichner teaches in the same field of catheter sensing devices teaches wherein said plurality of digital magnetometers are located on a same digital communication bus ([0084]: "The emitter-controller interface 508 may, in certain alternate applications of the second version, provide a communication and electrical power pathway for electrical power, commands, data and status information between the controller 401 and other elements 500-510 of the emitter 402 and the first sensor 404, the second sensor, 406 and the third sensor 408, via the emitter bus 506" - See fig. 5 showing all the sensors on the same bus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the before the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, with Leichner, in order to reduce the amount of wires needed for communication between the sensors by placing all the sensors on one communication bus to decrease tangling of wires and to reduce interference between multiple wires in one catheter device.
Regarding claim 24, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 15 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not teach wherein a plurality of said digital magnetometers are located on a same digital communication bus.
Leichner teaches in the same field of catheter sensing devices teaches wherein said plurality of digital magnetometers are located on a same digital communication bus (Paragraph 0084: "The emitter-controller interface 508 may, in certain alternate applications of the second version, provide a communication and electrical power pathway for electrical power, commands, data and status information between the controller 401 and other elements 500-510 of the emitter 402 and the first sensor 404, the second sensor, 406 and the third sensor 408, via the emitter bus 506" - See fig. 5 showing all the sensors on the same bus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the before the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, with Leichner in order to reduce the amount of wires needed for communication between the sensors by placing all the sensors on one communication bus to decrease tangling of wires and to reduce interference between multiple wires in one catheter device.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verard, in view of Hancu, further in view of Salazar, and further in view of Song, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US20190111233 to “Beeckler”.
Regarding claim 18, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 15 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song do not disclose wherein the device further comprises a flexible PCB along the flexible device, wherein the digital magnetometers are located along the flexible PCB.
Beeckler teaches in the same field of invasive medical systems teaches, wherein the device further comprises a flexible PCB along the tube (Paragraph 0018: "In some embodiments, a first conductive layer, such as a gold layer, is deposited at predefined locations of a flexible substrate, such as a multi-layered flexible printed circuit board (PCB) sheet, which is provided in a planar form and is configured to wrap around an insertion tube of a catheter''), wherein the digital magnetometers are located along the flexible PCB (Paragraph 0050: "FIG. 3 is a schematic, sectional side view showing micro-electrodes 62 formed on PCB sheet 60 '').
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the time of the effective filing date, to modify the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, with Beeckler to include use a flexible PCB alone the tube as the flexible PCB allows the sensors to conform to the shape of the catheter.
Regarding claim 19, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, Song, and Beeckler disclose all the features of claim 18 above.
Beeckler further teaches wherein the flexible PCB is wrapped in a helix manner on a wall of the tube (Paragraph 0018, "In some embodiments, a first conductive layer, such as a gold layer, is deposited at predefined locations of a flexible substrate, such as a multi-layered flexible printed circuit board (PCB) sheet, which is provided in a planar form and is configured to wrap around an insertion tube of a catheter" - it is known to one having ordinary skill in the art that wrapping the PCB around a cylindrical catheter produces a helix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the time of the effective filing date, to further modify the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, Song, and Beeckler, with the additional teachings of Beeckler to wrap the PCB around in the helix manner such that digital magnetometers on the PCB do not overlap with each other.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song disclose all the features of claim 15 above.
However, the modifications of Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Songdo not disclose a plurality of the magnetometers are installed on a same flexible printed circuit, and wherein the flexible printed circuit includes thinner portions between the digital magnetometers.
Beeckler teaches wherein a plurality of the magnetometers are installed on a same flexible printed circuit (See Fig. 2, Paragraph 0040, and 0043, array of sensors printed on the same PCB sheet; wherein the array of sensors are connected by conductive traces; the conductive traces would read on wherein the flexible printed circuit includes thinner portions between the digital magnetometers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system as described by Verard, Hancu, Salazar, and Song, wherein a plurality of the magnetometers are installed on a same flexible printed circuit, and wherein the flexible printed circuit includes thinner portions between the digital magnetometers, as taught by Beeckler, in order to refine the mapping of the magnetic field (Paragraph 0020).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Milton Truong whose telephone number is (571)272-2158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, MON-FRI.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/MT/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights