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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 11/12/2025.
The amendments filed on 11/12/2025 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 164-182 remain pending.
Some of the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments and the applicant’s remarks. Further, new rejections are also noted.
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 164-180 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 164, 169, 171, 176, 177 and 179 recite the limitation of “passive targets”. It is not clear how or what makes these targets “passive”. In other words, the most pertinent parts of the specification states “a passive electromagnetic coil” (see [0062]) as “passive targets”. The electromagnetic coil which is known in the art to be an electrical component that generates a magnetic field when an electric current flows through it. Which means they are known to be “passive” when no magnetic field is applied/introduced just as antennas coils etc.
Therefore, it is not clear if there is anything special that makes the targets “passive target”.
Claim 174 recites the limitation of “determine a muscle-tendon dynamics model” which the “muscle-tendon dynamics model” is not clear. In other words, it is not clear what it entails, comprises, or how it is modeled.
The depending claims are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency.
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 164-182 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 164 recites “estimating a position and orientation” and “determining at least one state of the at least two targets”
The limitation of “estimating a position and orientation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually estimating a position and orientation (or with a simple pen and paper). Similarly, the limitation of “determining at least one state of the at least two targets”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining at least one state of the at least two targets” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the state of the targets that needs to be determining and solving this in mind (or with a simple pen and paper). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
There is no judicial exception that integrates the claims to a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recites any additional element to perform the limitation of “estimating a position and orientation” and “determining at least one state of the at least two targets”.
Accordingly, nothing is recited in the claims to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites in the generic forms and very broadly “implanting targets” and “employing an array of sensors to detect a magnetic field at each of the sensors of the array” which again these additional elements that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, the independent claim 181 (along with the depending claim 182) also recites same limitations of “processing” and “calibrating” that are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further, the claims also do not include judicial exception that integrates the claims to a practical application.
Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Similarly, the depending claims also recites same limitations of “estimating” and “determining” that are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Further, the depending claims also do not include judicial exception that integrates the claims to a practical application.
Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the depending claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 181-182 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahfouz et al (US 20130217998).
Regarding the claim 181, Mahfouz teaches a method for calibrating magnetometers (“FIG. 5C, flow chart 189 illustrates an exemplary process for calibrating the magnetometer 60” [0079]), comprising:
generating a magnetic field in proximity to the magnetometers (“The magnetometer 60 may generate one or more output signals indicative of the strength and/or orientation of a magnetic field relative to the magnetometer 60” [0046]);
processing magnetic field signals generated by the magnetometers based, at least in part, on the magnetic field detected by the magnetometers (See fig. 2 of the magnetometer 60 and the computer 54 to process the signals as also shown in associated pars of fig. 2; “the processor 72 may be used to perform digital signal processing, such as data compression, prior to transmitting the data to the computer 54. Multiple core or multiple processor architectures, and or a field programmable gate array (FPGA) may also be used.” [0051]); and
calibrating at least one of bias, location, or angle of the magnetometers based, at least in part, on the magnetic field signals (“Referring now to FIG. 5C, flow chart 189 illustrates an exemplary process for calibrating the magnetometer 60 of inertial monitoring unit 48A, 48B. In block 190 of flowchart 189 the inertial monitoring unit 48A, 48B is placed on the rotating rate table in a known static pose. In block 192, data is obtained from the magnetometer 60 while the rate table is rotating in one of the three axes X1, X2, X3 at a known fixed angular velocity in the presence of the magnetic vector 166. Data is then obtained from the magnetometer 60 with the inertial monitoring unit 48A, 48B moving at a known angular velocity in the axis X1, X2, X3 in question” [0079]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 164-168 and 175-178 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (WO2017136076A1, the citations below are from the US equivalent of US20170230084A1, cited in the IDS) and Wiedenhoefer et al (US 20170143261).
Regarding claims 164 and 177 (as the claim best understood in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections above), Zhu teaches a method for detecting a physical property of tissue (“A reader device includes an array of antenna coils configured to electromagnetically couple with devices implanted beneath or within skin of a human body. An implanted device can include a loop antenna or other means configured to couple with at least one antenna coil of the reader device to receive radio frequency energy from the reader device” abst), comprising:
implanting targets at an individual tissue (“devices implanted beneath or within skin of a human body” abst);
employing an array of sensors to detect a magnetic field at each of the sensors of the array (“array of antenna coils configured to electromagnetically couple with devices implanted beneath or within skin” abst);
electronics (e.g., “microprocessors, comparators, logic gates, digital oscillators, memories), or other components configured to provide functions of the microelectronic device 300” [0084]) configured to:
estimating a position and orientation of at least two of the targets based on the detected magnetic fields (“A signal strength of radio frequency signals scattered by, reflected from, or otherwise received from the implanted device by each antenna coil, in response to the antenna coil providing the radio frequency power (e.g., during a respective period of time), could be detected and used to determine the location and/or orientation of the implanted device” [0066]; A degree of electromagnetic coupling between an antenna (e.g., an antenna coil) of an implanted device and an antenna coil of a reader device could be related to a variety of factors. Such factors can include the orientation and location of the antenna coil relative to the antenna of the implanted device. To accommodate powering of implanted devices across a range of relative locations and/or orientations, the reader device can include an array of antenna coils that can be mounted proximate to a skin surface beneath which the implanted device is implanted. Each antenna coil of such an array of antenna coils could have a respective degree of electromagnetic coupling with the implanted device that is related to the respective location and/or orientation of each antenna coil relative to an antenna of the implanted device [0021]); and
determining at least one state of the at least two targets relative to each other based upon the estimated position and orientation of each of the at least two targets, wherein the state of the targets is indicative of a physical property of the individual tissue (“implanted devices …could be located proximate to a variety of different elements of a body … to detect properties of such different elements of the body” [0033]; “some relative locations and/or orientations of an implanted device (e.g., when the implanted device is located on the edge of a coil, or between two or more coils of an array of antenna coils), it could be beneficial to operate multiple coils to provide power to the implanted device. For example, power transmitted from a single antenna coil, via near-field electromagnetic coupling between the single antenna coil and an antenna of the implanted device, could be insufficient to operate the implanted device, the efficiency of the power transfer could be low, and/or the amount of radio frequency energy that is emitted from the single antenna coil and absorbed by the skin when operating the single antenna coil to power the implanted device could be higher than some specified maximum value.” [0022]).
Although, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the applicant’s own specification which defines the passive target as “Hall effect sensor, a passive electromagnetic coil, a magnetoresistor, a magneto-inductive sensor, a fluxgate magnetometer” (see [0062]), Zhu teaches the “passive target” (i.e., “ electromagnetic coupling (e.g., near-field electromagnetic coupling) between a particular antenna coil and the antenna 121 of the implanted device 120 can be related to a location or orientation of the implanted device 120 relative to the particular antenna coil, to properties of the environment of the antenna 121 and coils, or to some other factors.”). However, in an effort to provide compact prosecution, Wiedenhoefer is introduced to clearly show this narrow interpretation of “passive target”.
In the same field of endeavor, Wiedenhoefer teaches two proximity sensors (for example, a magnetometer and a magnet—such as a permanent magnet, electromagnet, or polymagnet or the like) can be implanted or placed externally on opposing sides of a joint. The distance between the two proximity sensors can be detected, measured, or otherwise observed. The distance between the two proximity sensors can be correlated to flexion or range of motion of the patient's joint. The variation in the distance between the two proximity sensors can be used to measure number of repetitions of joint motion or to monitor compliance with patient therapy [0066].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with passive target as taught by Wiedenhoefer because Measuring or monitoring the progress of the physical therapy can be problematic but is very useful for maintaining the patient's dedication and participation ([0004] of Wiedenhoefer).
Regarding claims 165 and 178, Zhu teaches tissue is a tendon (“implanted devices as described herein could be located proximate to a variety of different elements of a body (e.g., nerves, tendons, muscle fibers, bones, organs) to detect properties of such different elements of the body” [0033]).
Regarding claim 166, Zhu teaches tissue is a muscle (“implanted devices as described herein could be located proximate to a variety of different elements of a body (e.g., nerves, tendons, muscle fibers, bones, organs) to detect properties of such different elements of the body” [0033]).
Regarding claim 167, Zhu teaches tissue is a ligament (“implanted devices as described herein could be located proximate to a variety of different elements of a body (e.g., nerves, tendons, muscle fibers, bones, organs) to detect properties of such different elements of the body” [0033]).
Regarding claim 168, Zhu teaches tissue is a bone (“implanted devices as described herein could be located proximate to a variety of different elements of a body (e.g., nerves, tendons, muscle fibers, bones, organs) to detect properties of such different elements of the body” [0033]).
Regarding claim 175, Zhu teaches wherein the physical property of the tissue includes at least one member of the group consisting of: a contraction or relaxation of skeletal, cardiac, or smooth muscle; a bone bending; a bone stretching; a lung inflation; a peristalsis; a vasoconstriction; a vasodilation; a skin stress; a skin strain; a position of at least one bodily organ; an orientation of at least one bodily organ; a volume of at least one bodily organ; and a length of at least one bodily organ (“detect a strain that is related to hemodynamic properties of the portion of subsurface vasculature.” [0085]).
Regarding claim 176, Zhu teaches the targets are implanted at a pair of muscles in agonist-antagonist relationship to each other, whereby the physical property is the degree of contraction of the agonist-antagonist pair of muscles relative to each other (“implanted/implantable devices, and other devices, systems, … provided in devices that could be mounted on, proximate to, and/or within a variety of portions of the human body to measure a variety of physiological and/or hemodynamic properties of the human body (e.g., …, muscle activity, …).” [0027]; “Implanted devices … located proximate to a variety of different elements of a body (e.g., nerves, tendons, muscle fibers, bones, organs) … implanted device could be implanted proximate a tendon and could detect motion of the tendon. … implanted device could be implanted proximate a nerve or muscle fiber and could detect electrical activity (e.g., action potentials) of the nerve or muscle fiber. This could include detecting electrical fields or currents produced by the nerve or muscle fiber, e.g., by detecting a biopotential between two or more electrodes of the microelectronic device. Implanted devices as described herein could be disposed within or proximate to other tissues and configured to detect other physiological parameters and/or physical variables, or could be disposed within environments that are not part of a human body.” [0033]).
Claims 169-173 and 179-180 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Wiedenhoefer, and further in view of Sit et al (PCT/US2017/068803, the citations below are from the US equivalent of US20200139138A1).
Regarding claims 169 and 179, the combination noted above teaches all the claimed limitations except for operations performed in real-time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sit teaches adequate data transmission has occurred between one or more external devices 500 and one or more implantable devices 200. In these embodiments, programmer 550 can comprise diagnostic assembly 91 described herebelow, or otherwise be configured to detect one or more of: power transmission to the implantable system 20 (e.g., to detect power transmission to implantable system 20 below a threshold); power transmission to the implantable system 20 trending in an undesired direction; improper and/or inadequate data transfer to the implantable system 20; and combinations of one or more of these. In some embodiments, the programmer 550 monitors power transfer in real time and adjusts power transmission accordingly to optimize the rectifier 232 efficiency of one or more implantable devices 200. In some embodiments, apparatus 10 can be configured to adjust (e.g., in real time) the power transmission from one or more external devices 500 of external system 50 to one or more implantable devices 200 of implantable system 20, such as to optimize or otherwise improve an efficiency of apparatus 10, such as to improve the efficiency of transmissions between an external device 500 and an implantable device 200 [0094].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with operations performed in real-time as taught by Sit because it provides enhanced treatment of pain and other enhanced benefits ([0006] of Sit).
Regarding claims 170 and 180, the combination noted above teaches all the claimed limitations except for employing the physical property in closed-loop control of a muscle using artificial muscle stimulation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sit teaches apparatus 10 is configured to deliver stimulation energy to tissue, such as to treat pain. In particular, apparatus 10 can be configured to deliver stimulation energy to tissue of the spinal cord and/or tissue associated with the spinal cord (“tissue of the spinal cord”, “spinal cord tissue” or “spinal cord” herein), the tissue including roots, ganglia, and/or other nerve tissue. The delivered energy can comprise energy selected from the group consisting of: electrical energy; magnetic energy; electromagnetic energy; light energy such as infrared light energy. visible light energy and/or ultraviolet light energy; mechanical energy; thermal energy such as heat energy and/or cryogenic energy; sound energy such as ultrasonic sound energy (e.g., high intensity focused ultrasound and/or low intensity focused ultrasound) and/or subsonic sound energy; chemical energy; and combinations of one or more of these. In some embodiments, apparatus 10 is configured to deliver to tissue energy in a form selected from the group consisting of: electrical energy such as by providing a controlled (e.g., constant or otherwise controlled) electrical current and/or voltage to tissue; magnetic energy (e.g., magnetic field energy) such as by applying controlled current or voltage to a coil or other magnetic field generating element positioned proximate tissue; and/or electromagnetic energy such as by providing both current to tissue and a magnetic field to tissue. The coil or other magnetic field generating element can surround (e.g., at least partially surround) the target nerve and/or it can be incorporated as part of an anchoring system to the target tissue. Alternatively, or additionally, the magnetic energy can be applied externally and focused to specific target tissue via an implant comprising a coil and/or ferromagnetic materials. In some embodiments, the magnetic energy is configured to induce the application of mechanical energy. Delivered energy can be supplied in one or more stimulation waveforms, each waveform comprising one or more pulses of energy, as described in detail herebelow [0063].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with physical property as taught by Sit because it provides enhanced treatment of pain and other enhanced benefits ([0006] of Sit).
Regarding claim 171, the combination noted above teaches all the claimed limitations except for sensor to measure electromyographic (EMG) signals; and determining a muscle activation based, at least in part, on the measured EMG signals.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sit teaches functional element 560 can comprise one or more sensors configured to record data regarding a patient parameter selected from the group consisting of: blood glucose; blood pressure; EKG; heart rate; cardiac output; oxygen level; pH level; pH of blood; pH of a bodily fluid; tissue temperature; inflammation level; bacteria level; type of bacteria present; gas level; blood gas level; neural activity; neural spikes; neural spike shape; action potential; local field potential (LFP); EEG; muscular activity; electrical activity produced by skeletal muscles (e.g., as measured using electromyography, EMG) [0103]. Functional element 260 comprises one or more sensors configured to record data representing a physiologic parameter of the patient. Functional element 260 can comprise one or more sensors selected from the group consisting of: electrode; sensor configured to record electrical activity of tissue; blood glucose sensor; gas sensor; blood gas sensor; ion concentration sensor; oxygen sensor; pressure sensor; blood pressure sensor; heart rate sensor; cardiac output sensor; inflammation sensor; neural activity sensor; neural spike sensor; muscular activity sensor; EMG sensor [0155].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with measure electromyographic (EMG) signals as taught by Sit because it provides enhanced treatment of pain and other enhanced benefits ([0006] of Sit).
Regarding claim 172, Zhu teaches the method is used to control a prosthetic, orthotic, or other rehabilitative device (“implantable microelectronic devices including such sensors are described herein by way of example as devices configured to be implanted beneath a skin surface of a person … microelectronic devices can be applied in other contexts as well. For example, microelectronic devices disclosed herein may be included in implantable devices used to measure a hemodynamic or physiological parameter or other information relating to an animal. In another example, microelectronic devices disclosed herein may be included in devices to measure a light intensity or other properties of a natural environment, a material or fluid that is part of an artificial process, such as a waste treatment process, pharmaceutical synthesis process, food preparation process, fermentation process, or medical treatment process, or to measure a light intensity or other properties of some other material or environment” [0086]).
Regarding claim 173, Zhu teaches the method is used in musculotendinous applications involving wireless tracking of muscle-tendon state in animals (“two or more antenna coils of such an array could be operated to emit radio frequency power to wirelessly provide power to the implanted device” [0064]; “Such implanted devices could include a variety of electronics configured to provide such functions and/or to provide further functions, e.g., to operate a sensor (e.g., a light sensor, an accelerometer, a strain sensor, an analyte sensor, a biopotential sensor) of the implanted device to measure a property and to transmit a wireless transmission related to the measured property” [0072]).
Claim 174 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Wiedenhoefer and Sit as applied to claim 173 above and further in view of Herr et al (US 20130310979 A1).
Regarding claim 174, The above noted combination teaches all the claimed limitations except for determine a muscle-tendon dynamics model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Herr teaches neuromuscular model-based controller for a robotic limb having at least one joint includes a neuromuscular model having a muscle model, muscle geometry and reflex feedback loop to determine at least one torque or impedance command to be sent to the robotic limb (abst). FIG. 12 depicts a comparison of the soleus muscle dynamics produced by EMG versus those produced by reflex feedback to the muscle-tendon model [0029]. The activations (effective control commands) and ankle angles from gait data, we actuated a dynamical model of the plant (consisting of ankle muscle-tendon units) and estimated muscle state profiles [0181].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art before the invention was made to modify the method and/or device of the modified combination of reference(s) as outlined above with muscle-tendon dynamics model as taught by Herr because it improves the ability to reconfigure joint angle in response to very limited external factors ([0002] of Herr).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive at least for the reasons noted below;
Regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the applicant argues the following;
This claim feature cannot be performed in the human mind because they involve "estimating" a position and orientation, which involves optimizing the error between the calculated and measured fields. This is inherently a difficult numerical calculation and cannot be performed in the human mind. For example, paragraphs [0202] and [0203] of the present Application, at a minimum, provide the context of the complexity of the calculations involved, including involving submatrices of a magnetic field prediction error Jacobian matrix for the calculated magnetic field… Accordingly, amended independent Claim 164's recitation of "estimating a position and orientation of at least two of the passive targets based on the detected magnetic fields," cannot be performed in the human mind. For at least that reason, it is therefore submitted that Claim 164 and its dependent Claims 164-176 are not directed to a mental process type of abstract idea….
The Office Action states that "nothing is recited in the claims to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea." Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's amended Claim 164 does impose meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea. For example, Applicant's amended Claim 164 is a "method for detecting a physical property of tissue "and wherein the state of the targets is indicative of a physical property of the individual tissue."
For this additional reason, Claims 164-176 are integrated into a practical application and are not an abstract idea…
…estimating the position and orientation of at least two "passive targets" based on the detected magnetic fields, where those "passive targets" have been implanted at an individual tissue, is not well understood, routine, conventional activity.
Furthermore, "[a] factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity." (MPEP 2106.05(d)I.2.). MPEP 2106.07(a) III. discusses four types of evidence that should be supplied in connection with asserting claim limitations are well understood, routine, conventional activities. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action does not provide evidence to show well-understood, routine, conventional activity for the claimed activities of amended Claim 164, which involve estimating the position and orientation of at least two "passive targets" based on the detected magnetic fields, where those "passive targets" have been implanted at an individual tissue.
For at least that additional reason, Claim 164 and its dependent Claims 165-176 are not abstract ideas.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, claims still recite abstract idea as "estimating" and "determining" which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. Claims DO NOT even recite a structural component (e.g., “a processor” and or “mobile device”) and nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Further, the applicant also argues that the structural components (i.e., “passive targets”, “sensor” etc,) which are all generic component that is used for mere data gathering which are examples of activities that courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity. These components are widely practiced and commonly known with no specificity which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind especially without the recitation of computing components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claim DOES NOT even recite what component performs these functions let alone any additional element.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant's arguments regarding the claims 181 and 182 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive at least for the reasons noted below;
Regarding the rejections the applicant argues the following;
Claim 181 is not disclosed by Mahfouz because Claim 181 is a method for calibrating magnetometers that is based on "generating a magnetic field" in "proximity to the magnetometers," as opposed to relying on the earth's geomagnetic field as in Mahfouz.
Mahfouz uses the earth's geomagnetic field as a reference, and rotates the inertial monitoring unit (IMU) in prescribed ways to create the stimulus used to calibrate the scale and bias of the magnetometers. Excerpts from Mahfouz illustrate this…
By contrast with Mahfouz, Claim 181 involves an artificial magnetic field generation that serves as a calibration reference, namely, by "generating a magnetic field" in "proximity to the magnetometers," as opposed to relying on the earth's geomagnetic field as in Mahfouz. Mahfouz uses the earth's geomagnetic field - generally regarded as uniform - as the reference input to the calibration.
Accordingly, Claim 181 is not disclosed by Mahfouz, nor is its dependent Claim 182 for at least the same reasons. Applicant therefore respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of Claims 181 and 182.
Initially, as per MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description. Yet, it is important not to import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim. In light of the MPEP, it is noted that claim merely requires;
generating a magnetic field [hence, it is not claimed how or where the magnetic field is generated [from]] in proximity to the magnetometers;
processing magnetic field signals generated by the magnetometers based, at least in part, on the magnetic field detected by the magnetometers; and
calibrating at least one of bias, location, scale, non-linearity, or angle of the magnetometers based, at least in part, on the magnetic field signals.
As can be seen above, where or how the magnetic field is generated is not part of the claims nor it is required by the claims.
Therefore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., where or how the magnetic field is generated) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 164, 177 (and the depending claims thereof) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SERKAN AKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5338. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272 7230. 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.
/SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797