DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1-19 is 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 1 contains the term “common induced voltage values”. It is unclear what is meant by this term, as it is not common within the art. It is unclear what makes the induced voltages common. For purposes of examination the term is being interpreted as meaning “induced voltage values”. This issue is also present in claims 8, 9, and 17.
Claim 2 states that the measurement coil is used during first period of time as the driver coil and during a second period of time, which the second period of time is after the first period of time, as the second section of the measurement coil. It is unclear how the measurement coil can also be the driver coil if they are described as two different coils in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if the both sections of the measurement coil act as the driver coil or if it is merely the second section of the coil.
Claim 8 contains the term “the common induced voltage”, it is unclear if one “common induced voltage” is measured or if multiple values are measured as taught by claim 1.
Claim 13 contains the term “an induced common voltage”. It is unclear what is meant by this term, as it is not common within the art. It is unclear what makes the induces voltages common. Furthermore, the next step refers to “respective measured induced common voltage values”, however only one induced common voltage is measured in the previous step.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the common induced voltage values". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
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) 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20190380577 A1 – cited by applicant) in view of Trans-Tek (LVT- Linear Velocity Transducers)
In regards to claim 1 Martin teaches an apparatus for determining physiological parameter, the apparatus comprising;
an elongated magnetic probe ([0019] “Probe 12 may include an elongated shaft 12A, at least a portion of which is made of a magnetic material”), having a first end, a second end opposite to the first end and a middle section between the first end and the second end (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
562
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Martin Fig. 1
a driver coil arranged to partially surround the elongated magnetic probe ([0019] Fig.1 conductive drive coil 18 is arranged around probe)
a measurement coil arranged to partially surround the elongated magnetic probe (([0019] Fig.1 conductive measurement coil 22 is arranged around probe)
and a controller configured to selectively energize the driver coil to create a magnetic force to initiate movement of the elongated magnetic probe to a direction of the first end ([0019] “controller 20 configured to momentarily energize drive coil 18 to propel probe 12 forward toward the eye by electromagnetic force”);
and measure and first induced voltage value the measurement coil ([0021] “the measurement signal generated by measurement coil 22 may be in the form of an analog voltage signal”)
and calculate a first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe, and use the calculated first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe to determine the physiological parameter ([0033] Signal processing logic 24 may also be configured with executable software instructions to calculate a first derivative of the measurement signal at the moment in time t.sub.v when velocity of probe 12 is zero due to contact of probe 12 with cornea C, and to correlate the first derivative to an IOP (Intra Ocular Pressure) value).
Martin fails to teach the measurement coil comprising at least a first section and a second section; and a controller configured to measure first induced voltage values over the first section and common induced voltage values over at least one of: the first section and the second section, or over the second section, as a function of time during a time of the movement of the elongated magnetic probe; determine locator values as a function of time by dividing the first induced voltage values with the common induced voltage values; map the locator values as a function of time from the time domain to a spatial domain and calculate from the spatial domain locator values, a first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe, and use the calculated first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe to determine the physiological parameter.
Trans-tek teaches a measurement coil comprising at least a first section and a second section (Fig.1 shows two coils, one positive polarity and one negative polarity, as a measurement coil)
a method of measuring induced voltage values over the first section and over the second section as a function of time during a time of the movement of an elongated magnetic probe ([0002] “To avoid this, the coil is divided into two sections, so the N (North) pole of the magnet will induce a voltage in one coil and the S (South) pole will induce a voltage in the other coil. These two coils are then connected in series-aiding, to obtain a DC voltage output proportional to the magnet’s velocity”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the measurement coil of Martin to be the two section coil of Trans-tek and to determine the voltages over both coils in order to determine a DC voltage output proportional to the magnet’s velocity.
Martin/Trans-tek does not explicitly teach determining locator values as a function of time by dividing the first induced voltage values with the common induced voltage values; mapping the locator values as a function of time from the time domain to a spatial domain calculating from the spatial domain locator values, a first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe, and use the calculated first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe to determine the physiological parameter.
However it would be obvious to determine temporal locator values from the ratio of voltages output by both sections of the measurement coil over various time points (for example, before the probe is deployed, and the time in which the probe is fully extended as the voltage values explicitly change as a result of the position of the magnetic probe in the coil). It would also be obvious to map the known spatial locations of the tonometry probe to the ratio of voltages output by both sections of the measurement coil, in order to create a lookup table to determine spatial locator values from the ratio of voltages (for example, if the ratio between both sections is 1:1 it is known that the probe is in its initial position equally between the two coils, whereas if it is 1:2 then it is known that the probe has moved to a different position where less of the probe is in coil 1 and more of the probe is in coil 2). The spatial domain locator values are merely the positions of the probe during various time points. It would be obvious to determine the velocity of the probe using the spatial locator values as velocity is merely the rate at which an object's position changes (velocity = distance / time). This velocity can then be correlated to a IOP value as taught by Martin.
In regards to claim 3 modified Martin teaches an apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, when in use, the first section of the measurement coil surrounds a first section of the elongated magnetic probe and the second section of the measurement coil surrounds a second section of the elongated magnetic probe, wherein the first section of the elongated magnetic probe is different from the second section of the elongated magnetic probe, when the elongated magnetic probe is in its first spatial position (Modified Martin Fig 1 shows measurement coil 22 surrounding probe, The two sections of the measurement coil inherently encompass two sections of the probe).
PNG
media_image2.png
482
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Martin Fig 1
In regards to claim 4 Modified martin teaches an apparatus according to claim 3. Modified Martin does not explicitly teach wherein, when in use, the first section of the measurement coil does not surround the first section of the elongated magnetic probe and the second section of the measurement coil surrounds the second section of the elongated magnetic probe, when the elongated magnetic probe is in its second spatial position, which the second spatial position is different from the first spatial position. However, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Martin so that when the probe is fully extended the magnetic probe is not surrounded by the first section of the measurement coil, doing so would allow the device to know that the probe has been fully extended when the first coil measurement is zero.
In regards to claim 5 modified Martin teaches an apparatus according to claim 1,, wherein the time domain to spatial domain is mapped by at least one of: pre-determined transfer function or a look up table (See arguments for claim 1 “It would also be obvious to map the known spatial locations of the tonometry probe to the ratio of voltages output by both sections of the measurement coil, in order to create a lookup table to determine spatial locator values from the ratio of voltages (for example, if the ratio between both sections is 1:1 it is known that the probe is in its initial position equally between the two coils, whereas if it is 1:2 then it is known that the probe has moved to a different position where less of the probe is in coil 1 and more of the probe is in coil 2)”.
In regards to claim 6 modified Martin teaches an apparatus according to claim 1,, wherein the first section and the second section of the measurement coil (106, 602, 708, 1004) are connected in series (Trans-tek [0002] “These two coils are then connected in series-aiding”).
In regards to claim 8 modified Martin teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the common induced voltage is measured over all sections of the measurement coil (Trans-Tek [0002] voltage is measured over both sections of the coil to get the voltage output).
In regards to claim 10 modified Martin teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first velocity profile comprises at least one of: a velocity in the spatial domain, a velocity in the time domain (Martin [0018] “Measurement system 16 is further configured to provide a measurement signal representing velocity of probe 12 as a function of time”)..
In regards to claim 12 modified Martin teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a tonometer (Martin [0002] Device is a tonometer).
In regards to claim 13 Martin teaches a method for determining a physiological parameter, the method comprising
energizing a driver coil to move elongated magnetic probe to a direction of a first end of the elongated magnetic probe ([0019] “controller 20 configured to momentarily energize drive coil 18 to propel probe 12 forward toward the eye by electromagnetic force”);
measuring as a function of time, over a first section of a measurement coil, an induced first voltage ([0021] “the measurement signal generated by measurement coil 22 may be in the form of an analog voltage signal”);
and using a velocity profile to determine the physiological parameter (([0033] [0033] Signal processing logic 24 may also be configured with executable software instructions to calculate a first derivative of the measurement signal at the moment in time t.sub.v when velocity of probe 12 is zero due to contact of probe 12 with cornea C, and to correlate the first derivative to an IOP value).
Martin fails to teach measuring first induced voltage values over the first section and common induced voltage values over at least one of: the first section and the second section, or over the second section, as a function of time during a time of the movement of the elongated magnetic probe; determining locator values as a function of time by dividing the first induced voltage values with the common induced voltage values; mapping the locator values as a function of time from the time domain to a spatial domain and calculating from the spatial domain locator values, a first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe, and using the calculated first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe to determine the physiological parameter.
Trans-tek teaches a measurement coil comprising at least a first section and a second section (Fig.1 shows two coils as a measurement coil) and
a method of measuring induced voltage values over the first section and over the second section as a function of time during a time of the movement of an elongated magnetic probe ([0002] “To avoid this, the coil is divided into two sections, so the N (North) pole of the magnet will induce a voltage in one coil and the S (South) pole will induce a voltage in the other coil. These two coils are then connected in series-aiding, to obtain a DC voltage output proportional to the magnet’s velocity”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Martin to use a two section measurement coil like the coil of Trans-tek and to determine the voltages over both coils in order to determine a DC voltage output proportional to the magnet’s velocity.
Martin/Trans-tek does not explicitly teach determining locator values as a function of time by dividing the first induced voltage values with the common induced voltage values; mapping the locator values as a function of time from the time domain to a spatial domain calculating from the spatial domain locator values, a first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe, and use the calculated first velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe to determine the physiological parameter.
However it would be obvious to determine temporal locator values from the ratio of voltages output by both sections of the measurement coil over various time points (for example, before the probe is deployed, and the time in which the probe is fully extended). It would also be obvious to map the known spatial locations of the tonometry probe to the ratio of voltages output by both sections of the measurement coil, in order to create a lookup table to determine spatial locator values from the ratio of voltages (for example, if the ratio between both sections is 1:1 it is known that the probe is in its initial position equally between the two coils, whereas if it is 1:2 then it is known that the probe has moved to a different position where less of the probe is in coil 1 and more of the probe is in coil 2). The spatial domain locator values are merely the positions of the probe during various time points. It would be obvious to determine the velocity of the probe using the spatial locator values as velocity is merely the rate at which an object's position changes (velocity = distance / time). This velocity can then be correlated to a IOP value as taught by Martin.
In regards to claim 14 modified Martin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the elongated magnetic probe is directed to move towards a patient to hit a surface of the patient body and bounce back thereof (Martin [0018] “a measurement system 16 configured to propel probe 12 in a forward direction toward an eye of test subject, wherein probe 12 contacts a cornea C of the eye and is rebounded from the cornea in a reverse direction opposite the forward direction”).
In regards to claim 15 modified Martin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the measurements are carried out during the movement of the elongated magnetic probe to obtain induced voltage values as function of time (Martin [0018] “Measurement system 16 is further configured to provide a measurement signal representing velocity of probe 12 as a function of time”).
In regards to claim 16 modified Martin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the determination of the physiological parameter is carried out at least by one of: change of velocity before the impact and after the impact ([0024] equation [00002] teaches determining a Lost Energy Ratio parameter that comprises a change in velocity squared between the time probe tip makes contact with cornea as the probe travels in the forward direction, and the time at which the probe tip loses contact with cornea as the probe travels in the reverse direction .
In regards to claim 18 modified Martin teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the first velocity profile comprises at least one of: a velocity in the spatial domain, a velocity in the time domain (Martin [0018] “Measurement system 16 is further configured to provide a measurement signal representing velocity of probe 12 as a function of time”).
Claim(s) 9, 11, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20190380577 A1 – cited by applicant) in view of Trans-Tek (LVT- Linear Velocity Transducers) as applied to claims 1 and 13, further in view of NHS (REPEAT PRESSURES PATIENT INFORMATION SHEET)
In regards to claim 9 modified Martin teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Modified martin fails to teach a device wherein the controller is further configured to- measure a second induced voltage values from a section other than the first section, as a function of time during a time of the movement of the elongated magnetic probe; determine a second locator values as function of time by dividing the second induced voltage values with the common induced voltage values; map the second locator function from a time domain to a spatial domain; calculate from the spatial domain second locator values a second velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe and use the calculated second velocity profile the elongated magnetic probe to update the physiological parameter. NHS teaches measuring eye pressure multiple times to ensure that a high measurement isn’t just one abnormally high reading (Measuring Eye Pressure “The pressure in one or both of your eyes was higher than normal when it was measured for the first time. This may just have been one abnormally high reading. So your eye pressure needs to be measured again, perhaps twice, to see if the pressure is high each time”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the method carried out by the controller of modified Martin a second time in order to update the detected IOP and ensure the first measurement wasn’t merely a mistake like the method of NHS.
In regards to claim 11 modified Martin teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second velocity profile comprises at least one of: a velocity in the spatial domain, a velocity in the time domain (Martin [0018] “Measurement system 16 is further configured to provide a measurement signal representing velocity of probe 12 as a function of time”).
In regards to claim 17 modified Martin teaches the method according to claim 13. Modified Martin fails to teach, wherein the physiological parameter value is updated by measuring as a function of time, with a section of a measurement coil different from the first section, a second induced first voltage; determining a second locator values as function of time by dividing the second induced voltage values with the common induced voltage values; mapping the second locator function from a time domain to a spatial domain; calculating from the spatial domain second locator values, a second velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe as function of location; using the calculated second velocity profile for updating the physiological parameter. NHS teaches measuring eye pressure multiple times to ensure that a high measurement isn’t just one abnormally high reading (Measuring Eye Pressure “The pressure in one or both of your eyes was higher than normal when it was measured for the first time. This may just have been one abnormally high reading. So your eye pressure needs to be measured again, perhaps twice, to see if the pressure is high each time”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the method of modified Martin a second time in order to update the detected IOP and ensure the first measurement wasn’t merely a mistake like the method of NHS.
In regards to claim 19 modified Martin teaches the method according to method according to claim 1, wherein the second velocity profile comprises at least one of: the velocity in the spatial domain, the velocity in the time domain (Martin [0018] “Measurement system 16 is further configured to provide a measurement signal representing velocity of probe 12 as a function of time”).
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Makkeli (US 20180368681 A1) teaches a tonometer with two coils, one of which is for measuring ([0039-0040] As a result, a voltage, which is dependent on the intraocular pressure, is induced in another coil 102. The coils 101 and 102 are mounted on a coil frame 106)
Kontiola (US 20080103381 A1 – cited by applicant) teaches a tonometer with two coils, one of which is for measuring (Abstract “An intraocular pressure is measured by an apparatus, which includes a probe supported in the case, one coil (50) around the probe for giving the probe a specific velocity in order to bring the probe in contact with the surface of the eye, and another coil (60) for performing measurement and setting functions”).
Salkola (US 20220409044 A1) teaches a tonometer with two coils operable to release a probe towards the surface of the eye and to retract the probe ([0075] coils 106A and 106B).
Cimbala (Linear Velocity Measurement) teaches two measurement coils for measuring the velocity of a magnetic core (Page 1 “Since the two coils are wrapped with opposite polarity, and since the magnet also has two poles (north and south), the south pole induces a voltage primarily in coil 1, and the north pole primarily in core 2.”)
In regards to claim 7, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a device comprising a third section of measurement coil, in combination with the other claimed elements. Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2 and 7 contain no prior art rejections, however they are not in condition for allowance due to their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791