DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/7/2024 and 5/21/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a metal frame of a patient support” as recited in claim 37 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(a):
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 35 recites, “wherein the first and second regions are overlappingly positioned.” The examiner is unable to identify any support for such a configuration in the drawings or specification or any use of the word “overlapping”. All of the embodiments seem to show an arrangement wherein the first and second regions are adjacently positioned as recited in claim 34. Fig. 2 most closely resembles the configurations as claimed wherein multiple loops 14 overlap each other. However, parent claim 22 defines “a first region of clockwise turns” and “a second region of counterclockwise turns” which “converge toward the center” which is not present in the embodiment of Fig. 2. Please provide
Further, the filing date of a PCT application corresponds to the international filing date. See MPEP 1893.03(b). The examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “wherein the first and second regions are overlappingly positioned” in the disclosure of PCT/IL2022/050862 filed on 7/15/2021. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 35 constitutes new matter.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for claim 22, does not reasonably provide enablement for “wherein the first and second regions are overlappingly positioned” in combination with all other limitations of claim 22. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification as filed fails to provide clear support for the limitation or identify any specific examples. As best understood by the examiner, if the first region overlapped the second region then the fields generated would cancel and rendered the device inoperable. Since the arrangement as claimed is not clearly understood by the examiner, the examiner is unable to identify relevant prior art, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the invention without undue burden or experimentation or provide a working example which would support enablement. Thus, the disclosed example does not bear a reasonable correlation to the full scope of the claim. Taking these factors into account, undue experimentation would be required by one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the full scope of claim 35.
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.
Claims 30-31, 35, and 39 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.
Claim 30 recites, “wherein each fundamental loop is associated with an analytic expression for its respective portion of the total electromagnetic field determined by the second method of calculating, and the analytic expressions are used by the processor to convert the accessed measurements to position estimates.” The limitation “an analytic expression” is indefinite in light of the specification as the specification fails to clearly identify what constitutes “an analytic expression” as claimed. The only recitation in the specification of the term “analytic expression” in the specification is provided at page 15, line 12 of the specification filed 1/15/2024 in reference to JB(r), however, JB(r) does not convert the accessed measurements to position estimates as recited in the claim. As best understood by the examiner, the claim limitations are directed toward the Bfun(r,Ii, pij) as recited in page 18 of the specification filed 1/15/2024. For the purpose of examination, any analytic expression relating the measurements to position would read on the claims in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 31 is rejected through a dependence on rejected claim 30.
Claim 39 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 30.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites “wherein the first and second regions are overlappingly positioned.” All of the embodiments seem to show an arrangement wherein the first and second regions are adjacently positioned as recited in claim 34. As best understood by the examiner, overlapping a first region corresponding to a clockwise portion with a second region corresponding to a counterclockwise portion would result in the fields canceling out. It is unclear how the language of “overlappingly positioned” in claim 35 is different from “adjacently positioned” in claim 34. Please identify support for the limitation in the disclosures as filed in PCT/IL2022/050762 filed on 7/15/2021 and provide clarification as to the scope of protection sought or cancel the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 25, 27-18, 33-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0141034 (Sharma) in view of US 2019/0343422 (Shlomovitz).
Regarding claim 22, Sharma teaches a transmitter coil for position-finding (EM coil sets 110, 120, 130 for determining a position of a magnetic sensor; see [0025]-[0027], [0060], [0064]; see Figs. 1-12), the transmitter coil comprising:
a plurality of turns of a conductor, and comprising a first region of clockwise turns and a second region of counterclockwise turns configured to reduce mutual inductance between the first and second regions (a spiral winding includes a plurality of turns of a conductor 322, 324 having clockwise spiral winding 112 and counterclockwise spiral winding 114, wherein the coils have the same configuration as claimed such that the mutual inductance is reduce due to the arrangement of clockwise and counterclockwise spirals; see Fig. 3);
a connection that receives electric current to cause the transmitter coil to transmit a total electromagnetic field into a sensing region, the total electromagnetic field being measurable within the sensing region to track a sensor (the wires receive a current a produce a magnetic field which is measurable in a sensor 28; see Figs. 1-12; see [0076]-[0077]);
wherein the turns are constrained by widths of the traces to converge toward a center, resulting in differing resulting magnetic fields from each turn (the wires 312, 314 converge toward a center to form a planar spiral coil wherein each turn decreases in size resulting in differing magnetic field for each turn; see Fig. 1).
Sharma fails to teach a plurality of turns of a conductor comprising traces of a printed circuit board; a connection that receives alternating electric current to cause the transmitter coil to transmit a total electromagnetic field into a sensing region.
Shlomovitz teaches a plurality of turns of a conductor comprising traces of a printed circuit board (transmitters 57A may be printed onto a printed circuit; see Figs. 12A,B; [0096]); a connection that receives alternating electric current to cause the transmitter coil to transmit a total electromagnetic field into a sensing region (a transmitter coil is provided with an alternating current frequency; see [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Schlomovitz into Sharma in order to gain the advantage forming the conductor as traces of a printed circuit board allowing the wiring to be relatively thin and flat, and allowing them to be transparent, or near transparent, to x-rays, and wherein providing an alternating frequency current applying AC and DC currents are both known methods in the art for determining a position.
Regarding claim 25, Sharma fails to teach explicitly teach wherein, for a same trace width, same transmitter coil overall dimensions, same level of power dissipation, and same sensor configuration, overall tracking error in position measurements made using the transmitter coil is at least 30% reduced compared to a printed circuit board coil without a reversing direction of turn.
Shlomovitz teaches in [0036]:
Distortion of the magnetic field during localization of an object therein deteriorates the accuracy of the target object localization within the magnetic field. Accordingly, aspects of the present disclosure are directed to reducing the magnetic distortion produced by ferrous objects outside an area of interest for localization, thereby improving the repeatability and accuracy of the localization system in response to environments with static and/or dynamic ferrous objects in proximity to the area of interest.” Emphasis provided by examiner.
Shlomovits further teaches wherein a single magnetic field transmitting coil as shown in Fig. 4 generates a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 5A wherein the field reduces as a function of distance as illustrated by 610 in Fig. 6B and a dual coil having clockwise and counterclockwise rotations shown in Fig. 7B generates a magnetic field as shown in Fig. 5B wherein the field reduces as a function of distance as illustrated by 615 in Fig. 6B. As shown in Fig. 6B the magnetic field 615 generated by the dual coil decreases faster than the magnetic field 610 generated by a single coil which decreases the effects of eddy currents which distort the magnetic field and impede the tracking accuracy. See [0032]-[0036].
Therefore, since Sharm and Schlomovitz each teach using a dual coil comprising clockwise turns and counterclockwise turns having identical structure as claimed and Schlomovitz teaches wherein the dual coil generates less distorting eddy currents which deteriorates the accuracy of the target as claimed, it would be a reasonable presumption that the prior art structure inherently performs the same functions as claimed in view of the arguments provided is Schlomovitz. See MPEP 2182.
Regarding claim 27, Sharma teaches the transmitter coil of claim 22, provided on the printed circuit board with at least two other transmitter coils (additional coils 120 and 130 are provided with coil 11, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate it would be obvious to form the coils on the same circuit board, such as stacked layers of a multi-layer circuit board as illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 28, Sharma teaches the transmitter coil of claim 27, wherein at least one of the other transmitter coils does not reverse winding direction between clockwise and counterclockwise (third electromagnet coil 130 does not reverse the winding direction; see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 33, Sharma teaches the transmitter coil of claim 22, provided together with a DC magnetometer configured to measure the total electromagnetic field for the position- finding, the DC magnetometer having a sensitivity substantially unaffected by frequency of the total electromagnetic field (a magnetic sensor detects the magnetic field from a DC current which would reasonably be interpreted as a DC magnetometer; see [0025]).
Regarding claim 34, Sharma teaches the transmitter coil of claim 22, wherein the first and second regions are adjacently positioned (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 35, Sharma teaches the transmitter coil of claim 22, wherein the first and second regions are overlappingly positioned (the field generated above the coils would correspond to a superposition of the fields from the counterclockwise spiral 114 and clockwise spiral 112, and would therefore overlap as best understood by the examiner; see [0107]; see Figs. 3-22).
Regarding claim 36, Sharma teaches a method of operating a transmitter coil for position measurement (see [0025]-[0027], [0060], ), the method comprising:
providing a transmitter coil comprising a plurality of turns of a conductor comprising traces, the turns comprising a first region of clockwise turns and a second region of counterclockwise turns configured to reduce mutual inductance (a spiral winding includes a plurality of turns of a conductor 322, 324 having clockwise spiral winding 112 and counterclockwise spiral winding 114, wherein the coils have the same configuration as claimed such that the mutual inductance is reduce due to the arrangement of clockwise and counterclockwise spirals; see Fig. 3);
providing electric current to the transmitter coil to transmit a total electromagnetic field into a sensing region (the wires receive a current a produce a magnetic field which is measurable in a sensor 28; see Figs. 1-12; see [0076]-[0077]);
accessing measurements of the total electromagnetic field made using a sensor within the sensing region (a receiver comprising: a microprocessor; a receiver antenna that receives the magnetic sensor output signal from the device antenna; see [0025); and
calculating a position of the sensor, according to the accessed measurements (non-volatile memory accessible to the microprocessor, the non-volatile memory including computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the microprocessor to determine a three-dimensional position of the magnetic sensor device using the measurement of the first, second, and third magnetic fields; see [0025]-[0027], [0060], [0064]).
Sharma fails to teach a plurality of turns of a conductor comprising traces of a printed circuit board; and providing electric current to the transmitter coil to transmit a total electromagnetic field into a sensing region.
Shlomovitz teaches a plurality of turns of a conductor comprising traces of a printed circuit board (transmitters 57A may be printed onto a printed circuit; see Figs. 12A,B; [0096]); providing electric current to the transmitter coil to transmit a total electromagnetic field into a sensing region (a transmitter coil is provided with an alternating current frequency; see [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Schlomovitz into Sharma in order to gain the advantage forming the conductor as traces of a printed circuit board allowing the wiring to be relatively thin and flat, and allowing them to be transparent, or near transparent, to x-rays, and wherein providing an alternating frequency current applying AC and DC currents are both known methods in the art for determining a position.
Regarding claim 37, Sharma fails to teach the method of claim 36, performed in a medical setting with a metal frame of a patient support surrounding the transmitter coil.
Shlomovitz teaches the method of claim 36, performed in a medical setting with a metal frame of a patient support surrounding the transmitter coil (Shlomovitz discloses the method is performed with a medical device shown in Fig. 3 having a table 78 and addresses magnetic distortions caused by ferrous/conductive objects such as metallic (conductive) objects, and any other object that otherwise affects the accuracy of a magnetic tracking system, but doesn’t specifically identify “a metal frame of a patient support”. It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the invention would be applicable for a table having a metal frame to suppress distortions caused by eddy currents arising in the metal objects as outlined in the reference. See Fig. 3; see [0032], [0045], [0047], [0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Schlomovitz into Sharma in order to gain the advantage of suppressing distortions caused by eddy currents arising in metal objects which decrease accuracy of tracking measurements.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 29-32, and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0141034 (Sharma) in view of US 2019/0343422 (Shlomovitz), and in further view of US 10,615,500 (Morgan) and US 5,659,281 (Pissanetzky).
Regarding claim 23, Sharma fails to teach wherein: a first method of calculating the total electromagnetic field accounts individually for each of the plurality of turns; a second method of calculating the total electromagnetic field accounts for the plurality of turns as a lesser number of fundamental loops, each fundamental loop providing a portion of the total electromagnetic field; and convergence of the traces toward the center is sufficiently great that total electromagnetic field calculated for the second method approaches total electromagnetic field calculated for the first method to within about 0.1% inside the sensing region only when at least three of said fundamental loops are used.
However, the limitations “a first method of calculating the total electromagnetic field accounts individually for each of the plurality of turns; a second method of calculating the total electromagnetic field accounts for the plurality of turns as a lesser number of fundamental loops, each fundamental loop providing a portion of the total electromagnetic field;” would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in view of fundamental principles for determining an electromagnetic generated in a wire. As best understood by the claimed “first method” is equivalent to calculating the field directly from the Biot-Savart law (as illustrated on page 11 of the specification filed 1/15/2024) and the claimed “second method” is performed by interpreting each loop as a closed loop (as illustrated in Fig. 5 of the pending application).
Further support may be found in col. 21, line 55 – col. 22, line 30 of Morgan which teaches:
In one example, by exporting the data corresponding to the generated planar antenna layout to the electromagnetic simulation tool at block 316, one or more electromagnetic fields that may be generated by the antennas of the antenna assembly may be simulated based on the exported data and on the superposition of multiple electromagnetic field components from each of the multiple straight linear portions of the planar antenna layout, respectively. For instance, each loop based on the seed shape can be expressed with a definite mathematical equation, such as a Cartesian equation or a parametric equation, such that the strength of an EM field generated by each loop can be calculated by the Biot-Savart-Laplace law at any point in space based on the mathematical equation. In other words, by virtue of geometrical and other aspects of the antenna assembly (such as the use of straight linear portions as the interconnections in the antennas of the antenna assembly), the need to generate and employ a detailed electromagnetic field mapping can be avoided by instead enabling an electromagnetic field mapping to be theoretically computed based on the characteristics of the antenna assembly. The computed electromagnetic field mapping can then be employed either alone or in conjunction with a more easily generated low-density electromagnetic field mapping obtained from measurements. In other words, the antenna assembly designed according to the procedure 300 can serve as the basis upon which to generate an accurate high-density theoretical electromagnetic field mapping for EMN, without having to use expensive measuring equipment and without having to perform time-consuming and laborious measurements.
As is apparent from the description herein, according to the procedure 300, an antenna assembly can be efficiently and designed in a repeatable manner based on a few design parameters and/or constraints, such as a seed shape, a number of loops, a TCCM, and/or the like. Each of the antennas of the designed antenna assembly can be printed, deposited, or fabricated on a respective substrate layer and can be used as the EM field generator 145 of the EMN system 100 of FIG. 1. Further, by virtue of employing straight linear portions to constitute the loop antennas, electromagnetic fields generated by each linear portion can be theoretically and accurately calculated using the Biot-Savart-Laplace law at any point in the EM volume.
Thus, the magnetic field may be determined based on a superposition of straight linear portions of the antenna and solved using the Biot-Savart-Laplace law.
Additional support may be found in US 5,659,281 (Pissanetzky) which teaches in col. 5, lines 13-34, “If one assumes that the current density in the cross-section of each magnet coil is constant, these axial derivatives may be calculated directly from coil geometry, without requiring integration of the Biot-Savart Law…”
Therefore, it is known in the art in view of Morgan and Pissanetzky that the magnetic field generated from a coil may be calculated directly by integration of the Biot-Savart law or calculated directly from the coil geometry without the need for integration. One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate the field determined by direct integration of the Biot-Savart law and when calculated directly from the coil geometry should yield substantially equivalent results for a given coil geometry.
Regarding the limitation, “convergence of the traces toward the center is sufficiently great that total electromagnetic field calculated for the second method approaches total electromagnetic field calculated for the first method to within about 0.1% inside the sensing region only when at least three of said fundamental loops are used”, as best understood by the examiner the limitation is an inherent feature when more than three loops are used with the limitation of “within about 0.1%” amounting to a mere design choice and/or desired optimization. Sharma (see figs. 3, 8, and 12) and Shlomovitz (see Fig. 7B) each teach wherein the coils comprise exhibiting “convergence of the traces toward the center” and “at least three loops”. Since Sharma and Shlomovitz teach all the structural limitations as claimed then, as best understood by the examiner, all limitations as claimed would reasonably be present in Sharma and Shlomovitz and/or be a mere matter of design choice and/or routine optimization.
Regarding claim 24, Sharma fails to teach wherein each of said fundamental loops comprises a plurality of fundamental segments, each fundamental segment having a virtual current.
As best understood by the examiner, the virtual current (Ii) is simply the current through each segment of the coil as discussed in page 18, lines 20-21 of the specification filed 1/15/2024. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation as claimed would be equivalent to calculating the magnetic field for each coil segment with the virtual current being equivalent to current in each coil segment as taught in col. 21, line 55 – col. 22, line 30 of Morgan and col. 5, lines 13-34 of Pissanetzky, as outlined above. Such calculations provide the benefit of calculating the field strength based on the geometry of the coil without requiring integration of the Biot-Savart law.
Regarding claim 29, Sharma teaches the transmitter coil of claim 23, provided together with a processor and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions instruct the processor to: access measurements of the total electromagnetic field in the sensing region a receiver comprising: a microprocessor; a receiver antenna that receives the magnetic sensor output signal from the device antenna and non-volatile memory including computer-readable instructions; see [0025]; and convert the accessed measurements into estimated positions relative to the transmitter coil (non-volatile memory accessible to the microprocessor, the non-volatile memory including computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the microprocessor to determine a three-dimensional position of the magnetic sensor device using the measurement of the first, second, and third magnetic fields; see [0025]-[0027], [0060], [0064]).
Regarding claim 30, Sharma teaches wherein each fundamental loop is associated with an analytic expression for its respective portion of the total electromagnetic field determined by the second method of calculating, and the analytic expressions are used by the processor to convert the accessed measurements to position estimates (the rejection of claim 23 describes determining the magnetic field based on fundamental loops and Sharma teaches wherein the processor converts the accessed measurements to position estimates; see [0025]-[0026]; see Figs. 5-7, 9-11, 13-22).
Regarding claim 31, Sharma teaches wherein the processor converts the accessed measurements to position estimates, using a combination of analytic expressions determined for at least three fundamental loops (each coil comprises at least 3 loops, wherein expressions for at least three fundamental loops would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the rejection of claim 23; see Figs 3, 8, and 12).
Regarding claim 32, Sharma fails to teach wherein the processor estimates positions with at least five degrees of freedom.
Shlomovitz teaches wherein the processor estimates positions with at least five degrees of freedom (more than one positioning sensor may be configured to find six degrees of freedom of the catheter; see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Schlomovitz into Sharma in order to gain the advantage of determine the position of a catheter using three linear degrees of freedom and three rotational degrees of freedom.
Regarding claim 38, the claim recites the method of claim 36, wherein: the calculating accounts for the plurality of turns as a plurality of fundamental loops; within the sensing region, the calculating using the plurality of fundamental loops uses a magnetic field estimation which is within about 0.1% of magnetic fields calculated by accounting individually for electromagnetic field contributions of each turn; and the plurality of fundamental loops is selected to compensate for differences in resulting magnetic fields produced by the traces as they converge toward a center, such that obtaining the error within about 0.1% of the result requires the calculating to use at least three fundamental loops (The claim recites similar subject matter and is rejected in an equivalent manner as claim 23 above).
Regarding claim 39, the claim recites the method of claim 38, wherein the calculating converts the accessed measurements to position estimates using a combination of analytic expressions determined for at least three fundamental loops (The claim recites similar subject matter and is rejected in an equivalent manner as claims 30-31 above).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0141034 (Sharma) in view of US 2019/0343422 (Shlomovitz), and in further view of US 6,111,402 (Fischer).
Regarding claim 26, Sharma fails to teach wherein the turns of the conductor generate reversal of winding direction from clockwise to counterclockwise by crossing over each other.
Fischer teaches wherein the turns of the conductor generate reversal of winding direction from clockwise to counterclockwise by crossing over each other (multiple examples of a coils which generate a reversal of winding direction from clockwise to counterclockwise by crossing over each other are disclosed in Figs. 5a-e).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Fischer into Sharma amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for generating a coil having clockwise and counterclockwise portions, with another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143 I.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0141034 (Sharma) in view of US 2019/0343422 (Shlomovitz) and US 5,659,281 (Pissanetzky).
Regarding claim 40, Sharma teaches a method of designing a transmitter coil manufactured on a substrate (electromagnet coil sets 110, 120, 130 are illustrated in Fig. 1 as being on what would reasonably interpret as a substrate, but fails to teach where the substrate is a printed circuit board; see [0072]-[0076], [0085], [0094], [0120]-[0121], [0130], [0134], [0138]), the method comprising:
selecting power constraints for the transmitter coil, and dimensional constraints (coils are designed to achieve high resolution with high current efficiency, wherein the resolution is determined based on the current in the electromagnets ranging from 10-50 A and the coils are sized to have the appropriate number of windings and the coils having physical dimensions including wire gauge, inner/outer diameters 312, 314, 640, 650, 812, 814, width 116, 126, 632 sized for the field of view and current requirements; see [0072]-[0076], [0121]; see Figs. 1, 3, 4, 8, 12);
selecting an initial number of transmitter coil turns, designed to fit within the dimensional constraints of the substrate, while maintaining material construction and cross-sectional size consistent with the power constraints (the number of coils, dimensions, thickness are determined based on the desired range and/or strength of magnetic field, ; see [0072]-[0076], [0085], [0094], [0120]-[0121], [0130], [0134], [0138]); and
wherein the adjusting geometries is performed to optimize at least one of the group consisting of calculated overall tracking error and calculated power dissipation (parameters are determined to achieve a desired resolution with low-noise and desired current consumption; see [0072]-[0073], [0120]).
Sharma fails to teach a transmitter coil manufactured as part of a printed circuit board; dimensional constraints of the printed circuit board; selecting an initial number of transmitter coil turns, sized to fit within the dimensional constraints of the printed circuit board; iteratively adjusting geometries of the transmitter coil turns within the power constraints and the dimensional constraints.
Shlomovitz teaches a transmitter coil manufactured as part of a printed circuit board; dimensional constraints of the printed circuit board; selecting an initial number of transmitter coil turns, sized to fit within the dimensional constraints of the printed circuit board (transmitters 57A may be printed onto a printed circuit; see Figs. 12A,B and it would be common sense for one of ordinary skill in the art that the coil dimensions would be limited to the size of the printed circuit; [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Shlomovitz into Sharma in order to gain the advantage forming the conductor as traces of a printed circuit board allowing the wiring to be relatively thin and flat, and allowing them to be transparent, or near transparent, to X-rays.
Pissanetzky teaches iteratively adjusting geometries of the transmitter coil turns within the power constraints and the dimensional constraints (Optimization of the magnetic field parameters toward the design goal is then performed by iterative adjustment of the size, location and current in the coils 70A through 70C, followed by evaluation of the field after each incremental adjustment. Upon the simulated field reaching the optimal condition relative to volume of interest VOI, the position, current and size of each coil is then determined. See col. 5, lines 50-63 and col. 15, lines 13-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Pissanetzky into Sharma in order to gain the advantage iteratively designing a coil which generates a magnetic field by iteratively adjusting the size, location and current in the coils to reach an optimal condition for a given tolerance limit.
Claim(s) 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0141034 (Sharma) in view of US 2019/0343422 (Shlomovitz) and US 5,659,281 (Pissanetzky), and in further view of US 10,615,500 (Morgan).
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites the method of claim 40, wherein: calculations to evaluate the iteratively adjusted geometries of the transmitter coil turns use an approximation which groups the transmitter coil turns into a plurality of fundamental loops; the plurality of fundamental loops comprises at least three fundamental loops; for a volume of a sensing region in which position relative to the transmitter coil is to be determined during use of the transmitter coil, the approximation using fundamental loops allows position estimation based on measurements of an electromagnetic field produced by the transmitter coil, with an error of approximation for the electromagnetic field within about 0.1% of electromagnetic field calculation considering each individual transmitter coil turn; wherein said error of approximation is reached only when at least three of said fundamental loops are used (As best understood by the examiner, the claim paraphrases subject matter recited in claim 23 and provides a method for performing the routine optimization to obtain the transmitter coil in 23. Sharma is interested in optimizing the magnetic field in the FOV of the apparatus, See the rejection of claim 23. Also see [0060], [0135], Fig. 24).
Regarding claim 42, the claim recites the method of claim 41, wherein: convergence of the turns toward a center of the transmitter coil has an effect on resulting magnetic fields sufficiently significant so as to constrain the calculating to use at least three of said fundamental loops; and wherein an efficiency gained from optimization of the transmitter coil designs is at least a 30% decrease in overall tracking error for a same power level, or at least a 30% reduction in power level for a same overall tracking error (The claim recites similar subject matter as claims 23 and 25 and is rejected in an equivalent manner as outlined in the rejections of claims 23 and 25. ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858