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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted were filed on 09/18/2023 and 03/11/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a first clock” should be corrected to “a first signal clock”
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“first clock-rates” should be corrected to “first clock-rate”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 12-13, 15, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following is the analysis under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a “method” (process) and thus meets the requirements for step 1 since the claims are directed toward one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas for reasons set forth below:
“processing the location signals by a signal processor associated with a second signal clock not synchronized with said first clock and having a second clock-rate, to determine phases of the location signals relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter-receiver utility, said processing comprises: A. determining a clock-rate-ratio as a ratio between said first and second clock rates; B. determining a time-lag between said first and second signal clocks; and C. digitizing the location signals based on said second clock to yield respective digitized signals, wherein said digitizing includes compensating for said clock-rate-ratio and compensating for said time-lag, such that the frequencies and phases of said digitized signals are adjusted relative to said first signal clock of the transmitter receiver utility; thereby determining said phases of location signals relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter receiver utility and enabling to determine the position of said at least a portion of a catheter’s distal end based on said phases”.
A human may process said location signals in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. By performing simple mathematical division, a human may determining a clock-rate ratio between first and second clock-rates (Step A). In addition, a human may subtract a time given by a first clock and a time given by a second clock to determine a time-lag between the two (Step B). To digitize the location signals based on the second clock to yield digitized signals, a human may convert the analog location signals into a series of 0s and 1s such that the data is in digital form (Step C). To compensate for the clock-rate-ratio, a human may perform multiplication such that the ratio becomes 1 (Step C). To compensate for time-lag, a human may add time or seconds to a clock signal measurement such that there is substantially no time-lag between the two clock signals (Step C). In addition by knowing the frequency and phase of the first clock, and by graphing the digitized location signal on paper, a human may adjust the frequency and phase of the digitized location signal relative to the first signal clock, thereby a phase of the location signal would be determined relative to the transmitter receiver utility (Step C). With the phase, a human using mathematical formulas related to time of arrival (TOA) or time difference of arrival (TDOA) may determine the distance to the catheter’s distal end and thus its position(Step C).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the reasons set forth below:
“by a position sensor at said at least portion of the catheter’s distal end, receiving a plurality of location signals being wireless electromagnetic signals that were transmitted by a transmitter-receiver utility with respective plurality of transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock associated with said transmitter-receiver utility”.
This limitation amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The recited position sensor, first clock, second clock, and signal processor which perform generic computer functions also amount to generic computer components.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two.
In addition, there is no practical application recited in claim 1. Rather, claim 1 only results in the “enabling” to determine a position of a portion of a catheter’s distal end; the method recited in claim 1 does not actually result in the determining of a position of the portion of the catheter’s distal end.
Regarding claim 12:
Step 1: Claim 12 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 12 recites the following limitation that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mathematical concepts and mental process grouping of abstract ideas:
“wherein said compensating for said clock-rate ratio comprises re-interpolating said digitized signals based on said clock-rate-ratio to yield said digitized signals with samples corresponding to a sampling rate of said first signal clock”.
A human in the mind or with pen and paper may perform the mathematic concept of re-interpolation of a digital signal to yield samples corresponding to a sample rate of a first clock.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 12 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two.
Regarding claim 13:
Step 1: Claim 13 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 13 recites the following limitation that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mathematical concepts and mental process grouping of abstract ideas:
“wherein said compensating for said time lag comprises re-interpolating said digitized signals to shift their phases according to said time lag and thereby yield said digitized signals with phases adjusted relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter receiver utility”.
A human in the mind or with pen and paper may perform the mathematical concept of re-interpolation of a digital signal to shift/adjust the phase of the signal according to the time lag.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 13 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two.
Regarding claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 is directed to a “system” (machine) and thus meets the requirements for step 1 since the claims are directed toward one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 15 recites the following limitations that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas for reasons set forth below:
“process the location signals to determine their phases relative to their respective transmissions”, “determine a clock-rate-ratio between said first and second clock-rates”, “determine a time-lag between said first and second signal clocks”, “utilizing said second clock, said clock-rate-ratio and said time-lag to digitize the location signals with compensation for said clock-rate-ratio and compensation for said time-lag, to yield respective digitized signals with frequencies and phases adjusted relative to said first signal clock of the transmitter receiver utility”, “determines the phases of the location signals relative to their respective transmissions”, “enables to determine the position of said at least portion of the catheter’s distal end based on said phases”.
A human may process said location signals to determine their phases in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper; by plotting the signals, the phases of the signals may be known. By performing simple mathematical division, a human may determining a clock-rate ratio between first and second clock-rates (A. clock rate processor). In addition, a human may subtract a time given by a first clock and a time given by a second clock to determine a time-lag between the two (B. time lag processor). To digitize the location signals based on the second clock to yield digitized signals, a human may convert the analog location signals into a series of 0s and 1s such that the data is in digital form (C. signal synchronizer). To compensate for the clock-rate-ratio, a human may perform multiplication such that the ratio becomes 1 (C. signal synchronizer). To compensate for time-lag, a human may add time or seconds to a clock signal measurement such that there is substantially no time-lag between the two clock signals (C. signal synchronizer). In addition by knowing the frequency and phase of the first clock, and by graphing the digitized location signal on paper, a human may adjust the frequency and phase of the digitized location signal relative to the first signal clock, thereby a phase of the location signal would be determined relative to the transmitter receiver utility. With the phase, a human using mathematical formulas related to time of arrival (TOA) or time difference of arrival (TDOA) may determine the distance to the catheter’s distal end and thus its position(Step C).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 15 recites the following additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the reasons set forth below:
“a signal processor configured and operable for connecting to a position sensor arranged at an at least portion of a catheter’s distal end, for receiving, from the position sensor, a plurality of location signals indicative of electromagnetic signals transmitted by a transmitter-receiver utility with respective plurality of transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock of the transmitter-receiver utility and received by the position sensor”.
This limitation amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering – see MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The recited position sensor, first clock, second clock, and signal processor comprising a clock rate processor, a time lag processor, and a signal synchronizer are recognized as known class of structures that can perform the functions set forth in the claim, e.g. the clock rate processor is claimed as a generic device that performs the generic function of determining a clock-rate-ratio. These components are recited so generically such that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Step 2B: Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two. It is also notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception is not in itself an inventive concept and does not guarantee eligibility.
In addition, there is no practical application recited in claim 15. Rather, claim 15 only results in the “enabling” to determine a position of a portion of a catheter’s distal end; the system recited in claim 15 does not actually result in the determining of a position of the portion of the catheter’s distal end.
Regarding claim 24:
Step 1: Claim 24 is directed towards a system (machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 24 recites the following limitation that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mathematical concepts and mental process grouping of abstract ideas:
“interpolating the digitized signals according to said clock-rate-ratio, to yield said digitized signals as interpolated digital signals with samples corresponding to the first clock rate of the first clock of the transmitter receiver utility”.
A human in the mind or with pen and paper may perform the mathematic concept of interpolation of a digital signal to yield samples corresponding to a clock rate of a first clock.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 24 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two.
Regarding claim 25:
Step 1: Claim 25 is directed towards a system (machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 25 recites the following limitation that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mathematical concepts and mental process grouping of abstract ideas:
“compensation for the time lag by adjusting the phase of said second clock in order to reduce or eliminate said time lag between the first and second clock”.
A human in the mind or with pen and paper may perform the mathematical concept of adjusting the phase of the signal according to the time lag by shifting the signal values forward or backward with respect to time such that the first and second clock signals align with zero time lag.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 25 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two.
Regarding claim 26:
Step 1: Claim 26 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 26 recites the following limitation that when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mathematical concepts and mental process grouping of abstract ideas:
“compensation for time lag by interpolating the digitized signals to shift their phases according to said time lag and thereby yield said digitized signals as interpolated digital signals with phases adjusted relative to the timing of said first clock of the transmitter receiver utility”.
A human in the mind or with pen and paper may perform the mathematical concept of interpolation of a digital signal to shift/adjust the phase of the signal according to the time lag.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Claim 26 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 26 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and in combination, they do not add an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth above in step 2A, prong two.
The depending claims also recite similar abstract ideas (e.g., providing, processing, determining, etc.) without additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-27 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite “a transmitter-receiver utility with respective plurality of transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock”. It is not clear how the transmitter-receiver utility and clock are associated and/or it is not clear what is the relation between the transmission frequencies and the clock/clock rate.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite a signal processor comprising/associated with a second signal clock having a second clock-rate not synchronized with said first clock. It is not clear how the 1st and 2nd clocks and the signal processor relate to one another (i.e. are they connected at all) or how the two clocks communicate with each other.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite the limitation “said clock-rate-ratio”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; it is not clear which one of the “said clock-rate-ratio” is being referred to.
Claims 1 and 15 further recite “thereby determines the phases of the location signals relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter receiver utility”. It is not clear which transmissions of the location signals are being referred to.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "dummy CW signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. CW must be defined at the 1st occurrence. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted for “dummy CW signal” to refer to “dummy signal” recited in claim 19.
Claims 2-14, 16-27 are further rejected by virtue of dependency on rejected claims 1 and 15.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 15-16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari (US20180373288) in view of Bartlett (US20120122485) and Ishikawa (US20110171970).
Regarding claim 1, Govari teaches a method to determine a position of at least a portion of a catheter's (10) distal end (Abstract, [0012-0013], [0015-0017]), the method comprising:
by a position sensor at said at least portion of the catheter's (10) distal end, receiving a plurality of location signals being wireless electromagnetic signals that were transmitted by a transmitter-receiver utility (18) with respective plurality of transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock (40) associated with said transmitter-receiver utility (18) (Fig. 1, [0012], [0016-0017], [0019], [0021], wherein the catheter hub 18 having a clock 40, receiving data from the position sensor, and transmitting data to the processor 14 of the workstation 12 comprises a transmitter-receiver utility with respective transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock); and
processing the location signals by a signal processor (14) associated with a second signal clock (38) not synchronized with said first clock (40) and having a second clock-rate ([0012], [0014], [0016-0017], [0021], wherein clock2 40 indicating a different time to clock1 38 comprises the clocks not being synchronized and thus having different clock-rates).
However, Govari fails to teach processing the location signals by the signal processor to determine phases of the location signals relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter-receiver utility, and wherein said processing comprises: B. determining a time-lag between said first and second signal clocks; and C. digitizing the location signals based on said second clock to yield respective digitized signals, compensating for said time-lag, such that frequencies and phases of said digitized signals are adjusted relative to said first signal clock of the transmitter receiver utility; thereby determining said phases of the location signals relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter receiver utility and enabling to determine the position of said at least a portion of a catheter's distal end based on said phases.
In an analogous method for determining a position field of endeavor, Bartlett teaches such a feature. Bartlett teaches a first and second device with first and second reference clocks respectively ([0045]). Bartlett teaches receiving a plurality of reference signals at the first device from the second device and determining a phase and frequency of the first reference signal with respect to the first reference clock, wherein the first reference signal comprises a location signal ([0045]). Bartlett teaches by doing so, a relative range (distance/position), clock frequency offset, and clock phase offset may be determined ([0045]). Bartlett teaches the clocks are unsynchronized and wherein the determinations above comprises compensating for phase and frequency offsets between the first and second clocks such that a frequency offset and phase of one reference clock is characterized with respect to the other clock ([0055]). Bartlett therefore teaches adjusting frequencies and phases relative to a first clock. Moreover, Bartlett teaches determining the range d (position) and a reference time offset (time lag) between the two devices/clocks ([0039], [0097], [0282]). Bartlett teaches the position of a device may be determined by computing its range and time offset from the other device ([0282]). Bartlett therefore teaches determining phases of a location signal relative to their respective transmissions and enabling to determine a position of a device based on said phases. Bartlett further teaches wherein the method includes processing of said location signals with a processor and thus teaches digitizing of said signals ([0065-0066], [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to determine the phases of the location signals to determine the position of the device as taught by Bartlett ([0039], [0045], [0055], [0097], [0282]). By doing so, the position of the device may be determined while having unsynchronized clocks as recognized by Bartlett ([0020], [0024]). Since Govari teaches wherein the tracked device comprises a catheter’s distal end, Govari modified by the teachings of Bartlett would predictably result wherein the device being tracked based on the phase of the location signals comprises at least a portion of a catheter's distal end.
However Govari, when modified by Bartlett, fails to teach wherein said processing comprises: A. determining a clock-rate-ratio as a ratio between said first and second clock-rates and wherein said digitizing includes compensating for said clock-rate-ratio.
In an analogous method for determining a position field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches such a feature. Ishikawa teaches determining a clock rate ratio and time lag between two devices to accurately determine a position of a station ([0006], [0009-0010], [0040]). Ishikawa teaches a position of a station may be determined by taking into account, or compensating for, time lag and clock rate ratio ([0009]). Moreover, Ishikawa teaches means for calculating clock rate ratio and time lag (time deviation) ([0041-0042]). Ishikawa further teaches correcting a reception time of a clock (40) based on the clock rate ratio between clock 40 and clock 58 ([0048]). Ishikawa teaches by calculating and compensating for the clock rate ratio and time lag, the position of a station (10) can be calculated ([0086]). In addition, Ishikawa teaches signal processing by a CPU to calculate said clock rate ratio and time lag, therefore teaching digitizing of location signals ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari in view of Bartlett to further determine and compensate for clock rate ration in addition to time lag as taught by Ishikawa ([0006], [0009-0010], [0040-0042], [0048], [0086]). By taking into account and compensating for clock rate ratio, a position of a device may be accurately determined as recognized by Ishikawa ([0007-0009]); position determination accuracy may be improved between devices having different clocks.
Regarding claim 2, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein said determining of the clock-rate-ratio between said first and second clock-rates, comprises the following: (a) providing data indicative of transmission frequency of at least one location signal of said location signals relative to the first clock-rate of the transmitter-receiver utility by which it is transmitted; (b) processing said at least one location signal by said signal processor and determining the reception frequency thereof relative to the second clock-rate; and thereby determining said clock-rate-ratio based on said transmission and reception frequencies.
In an analogous method for determining a position field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches such a feature. Ishikawa teaches determining a clock rate ratio between two devices to accurately determine a position of a station ([0006], [0009-0010], [0040]). Ishikawa teaches a clock rate ratio calculating section (66) for calculating the clock rate ratio (Fig. 5, [0041-0044]). Ishikawa teaches the clock rate ratio is calculated as a ratio of clock rates between timer 58 of a base station 12 and timer 40 of a reference station 11 ([0043]). Ishikawa teaches that more particularly, the clock rate ratio is calculated based on “tim_sb_trfend_sb” and “tim_sb_trlend_sb”, representing transmission times in the reference base station 11, and “tim_nbi_rvfend_sbnbi” and “tim_nbi_rvlend_sbnbi”, representing reception times in the ordinary base stations 12 ([0044]), wherein the transmission times comprise transmission frequencies relative to the first clock-rate and the reception times comprise reception frequencies thereof relative to the second clock-rate and thus Ishikawa also teaches providing data (to the clock rate ratio calculating section 66) indicative of transmission frequency (transmission time) of at least one location signal of said location signals relative to the first clock-rate and processing to determine a reception frequency (reception time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to calculate the clock rate ratio based on the transmission and reception frequencies as taught by Ishikawa ([0043-0044]). By calculating clock rate ratio in such a manner, information related to the position of the device may be solved based on time differences of arrival (TDOA) as recognized by Ishikawa ([0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
Govari further teaches wherein compensating for said time lag comprises adjusting the phase of said second signal clock (38) in order to reduce or eliminate said time lag (Fig. 4, [0021], wherein setting both clocks 38, 40 to “zero” initially comprises adjusting the phase of both clocks such that time lag is reduced).
Regarding claim 15, Govari teaches a system to determine a position of at least a portion of a catheter's (10) distal end (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0012-0013], [0016-0017]), the system comprises:
a signal processor (14) configured and operable for connecting to a position sensor arranged at an at least a portion of a catheter's (10) distal end, for receiving, from the position sensor, a plurality of location signals indicative of electromagnetic signals transmitted by a transmitter-receiver utility (18) with respective plurality of transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock (40) of the transmitter-receiver utility (18) and received by the position sensor (Fig. 1, [0012], [0016-0017], [0019], [0021], wherein the catheter hub 18 having a clock 40, receiving data from the position sensor, and transmitting data to the processor 14 of the workstation 12 comprises a transmitter-receiver utility with respective transmission frequencies relative to a first clock-rate of a first clock);
wherein said signal processor (14) comprises a second signal clock (38) having a second clock-rate not synchronized with said first clock (40) ([0012], [0014], [0016-0017], [0021], wherein clock2 40 indicating a different time to clock1 38 comprises the clocks not being synchronized and thus having different clock-rates).
However, Govari fails to teach wherein said signal processor is configured and operable to process the location signals to determine their phases relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter-receiver utility; the signal processor comprising: B. a time lag processor adapted to determine a time-lag between said first and second signal clocks; and C. a signal synchronizer configured and operably for utilizing said second clock, said clock-rate-ratio and said time-lag to digitize the location signals with compensation for said time-lag to yield respective digitized signals with frequencies and phases adjusted relative to said first signal clock of the transmitter receiver utility; said signal processor thereby determines the phases of the location signals relative to their respective transmissions by the transmitter receiver utility and thereby enables to determine the position of said at least portion of the catheter's distal end based on said phases.
In an analogous system for determining a position field of endeavor, Bartlett teaches such a feature. Bartlett teaches a first and second device with first and second reference clocks respectively ([0045]). Bartlett teaches receiving a plurality of reference signals at the first device from the second device and determining a phase and frequency of the first reference signal with respect to the first reference clock, wherein the first reference signal comprises a location signal ([0045]). Bartlett teaches by doing so, a relative range (distance/position), clock frequency offset, and clock phase offset may be determined ([0045]). Bartlett teaches the clocks are unsynchronized and wherein the determinations above comprises compensating for phase and frequency offsets between the first and second clocks such that a frequency offset and phase of one reference clock is characterized with respect to the other clock ([0055]). Bartlett therefore teaches adjusting frequencies and phases relative to a first clock. Moreover, Bartlett teaches determining the range d (position) and a reference time offset (time lag) between the two devices/clocks ([0039], [0097], [0282]). Bartlett teaches the position of a device may be determined by computing its range and time offset from the other device ([0282]). Bartlett therefore teaches determining phases of a location signal relative to their respective transmissions and enabling to determine a position of a device based on said phases. Bartlett further teaches wherein the method includes processing of said location signals with a processor and thus teaches a signal processor comprising a time lag processor and signal synchronizer for implementing the method and digitizing of said signals ([0065-0066], [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to include processing means for determining the phases of the location signals to determine the position of the device as taught by Bartlett ([0039], [0045], [0055], [0097], [0282]). By doing so, the position of the device may be determined while having unsynchronized clocks as recognized by Bartlett ([0020], [0024]). Since Govari teaches wherein the tracked device comprises a catheter’s distal end, Govari modified by the teachings of Bartlett would predictably result wherein the device being tracked based on the phase of the location signals comprises at least a portion of a catheter's distal end.
However Govari, when modified by Bartlett, fails to teach wherein the signal processor comprises: A. a clock rate processor adapted to determine a clock-rate-ratio between said first and second clock-rates; and compensation for said clock-rate-ratio.
In an analogous system for determining a position field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches such a feature. Ishikawa teaches determining a clock rate ratio and time lag between two devices to accurately determine a position of a station ([0006], [0009-0010], [0040]). Ishikawa teaches a position of a station may be determined by taking into account, or compensating for, time lag and clock rate ratio ([0009]). Moreover, Ishikawa teaches means for calculating clock rate ratio and time lag (time deviation) comprising a clock rate calculating section 66 and time deviation calculating section 68 respectively ([0041-0042]). Ishikawa further teaches correcting a reception time of a clock (40) based on the clock rate ratio between clock 40 and clock 58 ([0048]). Ishikawa teaches by calculating and compensating for the clock rate ratio and time lag, the position of a station (10) can be calculated ([0086]). In addition, Ishikawa teaches signal processing by a CPU to calculate said clock rate ratio and time lag, therefore teaching digitizing of location signals ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari in view of Bartlett to further include processing means for determining and compensating for clock rate ratio in addition to time lag as taught by Ishikawa ([0006], [0009-0010], [0040-0042], [0048], [0086]). By taking into account and compensating for clock rate ratio, a position of a device may be accurately determined as recognized by Ishikawa ([0007-0009]); position determination accuracy may be improved between devices having different clocks.
Regarding claim 16, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 15.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein the clock rate processor is configured and operable to determine said clock-rate-ratio by carrying out the following: (a) obtaining data indicative of a transmission frequency of at least one location signal of said location signals relative to the first clock-rate of the transmitter-receiver utility;(b) processing said at least one location signal to determine a reception frequency thereof relative to the second clock-rate; and (c) determining said clock-rate-ratio based on said transmission and reception frequencies of the at least one location signal.
In an analogous method for determining a position field of endeavor, Ishikawa teaches such a feature. Ishikawa teaches determining a clock rate ratio between two devices to accurately determine a position of a station ([0006], [0009-0010], [0040]). Ishikawa teaches a clock rate ratio calculating section (66) for calculating the clock rate ratio (Fig. 5, [0041-0044]). Ishikawa teaches the clock rate ratio is calculated as a ratio of clock rates between timer 58 of a base station 12 and timer 40 of a reference station 11 ([0043]). Ishikawa teaches that more particularly, the clock rate ratio is calculated based on “tim_sb_trfend_sb” and “tim_sb_trlend_sb”, representing transmission times in the reference base station 11, and “tim_nbi_rvfend_sbnbi” and “tim_nbi_rvlend_sbnbi”, representing reception times in the ordinary base stations 12 ([0044]), wherein the transmission times comprise transmission frequencies relative to the first clock-rate and the reception times comprise reception frequencies thereof relative to the second clock-rate and thus Ishikawa also teaches providing data (to the clock rate ratio calculating section 66) indicative of transmission frequency (transmission time) of at least one location signal of said location signals relative to the first clock-rate and processing to determine a reception frequency (reception time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to calculate the clock rate ratio based on the transmission and reception frequencies as taught by Ishikawa ([0043-0044]). By calculating clock rate ratio in such a manner, information related to the position of the device may be solved based on time differences of arrival (TDOA) as recognized by Ishikawa ([0082]).
Regarding claim 25, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 15.
Govari further teaches wherein the signal synchronizer is configured and operable to carry out said compensation for the time lag by adjusting the phase of said second clock in order to reduce or eliminate said time lag between the first (40) and second clock (38) (Fig. 4, [0021], wherein setting both clocks 38, 40 to “zero” initially comprises adjusting the phase of both clocks such that time lag is reduced).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari (US20180373288) in view of Bartlett (US20120122485) and Ishikawa (US20110171970) as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Beidas (US20020012363).
Regarding claim 3, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 2.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein said determining of the reception frequency of said at least one location signal relative to the second clock-rate comprises digitizing the location signal based on said second clock to yield a digitized signal and applying tone detection processing to the digitized signal.
In an analogous method for determining clock rate or frequencies field of endeavor, Beidas teaches such a feature. Beidas teaches tracking the frequency at which a terminal receives a signal and determining a phase delay ([0012]). Beidas teaches adjusting the clock rate of a receiving terminal so that it tracks the frequency of the received signal ([0012]). Beidas teaches wherein a Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) circuit may receive the received signal ([0014]). Beidas teaches the FFT circuit determines an offset between a local clock rate and the frequency of the received signal ([0014]). Moreover, Beidas teaches digitizing the incoming/received signal via a data converter 120 (Fig. 2, [0062]). Beidas teaches the FFT circuit (130) receives the digitized signal to determine the frequency of the signal (Fig. 2, [0063]). Beidas therefore teaches digitizing the signal and applying tone detection to said digitized signal, wherein applying Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) comprises applying tone detection processing as evidenced by the applicant’s specification (Page 16 lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to use digitize and apply Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) to determine the reception frequency of the signal as taught by Beidas (Fig. 2, [0014], [0062-0063]). Digitizing the signal predictably allows for said signal to be read and processed by a signal processor, and applying FFT is a well-known technique for determining the frequency of a signal.
Regarding claim 17, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 16.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein the clock rate processor is adapted to determine the reception frequency of the at least one location signal relative to the second clock-rate by digitizing the location signal based on the clock rate of the second clock to yield a digitized signal and apply tone detection processing to the digitized signal to thereby determine the frequency of the location signal.
In an analogous system for determining clock rate or frequencies field of endeavor, Beidas teaches such a feature. Beidas teaches tracking the frequency at which a terminal receives a signal and determining a phase delay ([0012]). Beidas teaches adjusting the clock rate of a receiving terminal so that it tracks the frequency of the received signal ([0012]). Beidas teaches wherein a Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) circuit may receive the received signal ([0014]). Beidas teaches the FFT circuit determines an offset between a local clock rate and the frequency of the received signal ([0014]). Moreover, Beidas teaches digitizing the incoming/received signal via a data converter 120 (Fig. 2, [0062]). Beidas teaches the FFT circuit (130) receives the digitized signal to determine the frequency of the signal (Fig. 2, [0063]). Beidas therefore teaches digitizing the signal and applying tone detection to said digitized signal, wherein applying Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) comprises applying tone detection processing as evidenced by the applicant’s specification (Page 16 lines 13-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to use digitize and apply Fast-Fourier Transform (FFT) to determine the reception frequency of the signal as taught by Beidas (Fig. 2, [0014], [0062-0063]). Digitizing the signal predictably allows for said signal to be read and processed by a signal processor, and applying FFT is a well-known technique for determining the frequency of a signal.
Claims 4-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari (US20180373288) in view of Bartlett (US20120122485) and Ishikawa (US20110171970) as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Zulim (US20160035524).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 2.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein said determining of the reception frequency of said at least one location signal relative to the second clock-rate comprises applying Clock-Derivation processing to said at least one location signal (claim 4), and wherein said Clock-Derivation processing comprises determining a tick-count of said second signal clock between zero-crossings of said at least one location signal and thereby determining the receipt frequency thereof relative to said second signal clock (claim 5).
In an analogous method including determining the frequency of a clock field of endeavor, Zulim teaches such a feature. Zulim teaches how often a clock provides clock ticks is its operating frequency ([0056]). Zulim teaches a processing device (112) configured to process a digital signal ([0048-0049]). Zulim teaches the processor (112) identifies zero-crossing points in an input signal and a timer (115) can count clock ticks between the zero-crossings points ([0052-0053]). Zulim therefore teaches determining a tick-count of a signal clock between zero-crossings of a signal, thus also teaching clock-derivation processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to determine zero-crossing points and counting clock ticks between the zero-crossing points as taught by Zulim ([0052-0053], [0056]). Counting the clock ticks may help facilitate a processor in synchronizing said clock as recognized by Zulim ([0051-0052]). Since Govari teaches wherein the signal comprises a location signal and wherein the reception signal includes a second clock, Govari modified by the teachings of Zulim would predictably result in determining of the reception frequency of said at least one location signal relative to the second clock-rate and wherein the zero-crossings are of the location signal.
Regarding claim 18, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 16.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein the clock rate processor comprises a Clock-Derivation processor that is adapted to determine the reception frequency of the at least one location signal relative to the second clock-rate; and wherein the Clock- Derivation processor is configured and operable to determine a tick-count of the second signal clock between zero-crossings of the at least one location signal and thereby determine the receipt frequency thereof relative to the second signal clock.
In an analogous system including determining the frequency of a clock field of endeavor, Zulim teaches such a feature. Zulim teaches how often a clock provides clock ticks is its operating frequency ([0056]). Zulim teaches a processing device (112) configured to process a digital signal ([0048-0049]). Zulim teaches the processor (112) identifies zero-crossing points in an input signal and a timer (115) can count clock ticks between the zero-crossings points ([0052-0053]). Zulim therefore teaches determining a tick-count of a signal clock between zero-crossings of a signal, thus also teaching a clock-derivation processor (processing device 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Govari to determine zero-crossing points and counting clock ticks between the zero-crossing points as taught by Zulim ([0052-0053], [0056]). Counting the clock ticks may help facilitate a processor in synchronizing said clock as recognized by Zulim ([0051-0052]). Since Govari teaches wherein the signal comprises a location signal and wherein the reception signal includes a second clock, Govari modified by the teachings of Zulim would predictably result in determining of the reception frequency of said at least one location signal relative to the second clock-rate and wherein the zero-crossings are of the location signal.
Claims 6, 9, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govari (US20180373288) in view of Bartlett (US20120122485) and Ishikawa (US20110171970) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Lu (US20220030540).
Regarding claim 6, Govari in view of Bartlett and Ishikawa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Govari fails to teach wherein said determining of the time-lag between said first and second signal clocks, comprises the following: (a) utilizing said clock-rate-ratio for generating, by said signal processor, a dummy signal with frequency that matches a certain transmission frequency of said transmission frequencies, and feeding said dummy signal to a receiver input of said transmitter- receiver utility, to thereby cause said transmitter-receiver utility to determine a phase difference between said dummy signal and one of said wireless electromagnetic signals that is transmitted thereby with said transmission frequency; and (b) determining said time-lag based on said phase difference and said certain transmission frequency.
In an analogous method for determining a location of a device field of endeavor, Lu teaches such a feature. Lu teaches a method for calculating a location of a user device based on time of arrival ([0019-0020]) and wherein the location or position of the device can be continuously tracked ([0041]). Lu teaches a transceiv