CTNF 18/853,460 CTNF 90257 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the limitation “an RF tag” in the first line, however, an RF tag was previously introduced in claim 1 and appears to be a minor oversight and should have recited the RF tag instead . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 9 & 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation “a RF tag” in the fifth line, however, an RF tag was previously introduced in claim 1 and appears to be a minor oversight and should have recited the RF tag instead. Dependent claim 10 is likewise objected to . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustine US Patent Application Publication 2015/0216610 and Zinn et al. WO Publication WO 2014042918 A2 (cited by applicant) . Regarding Claim 1 , Augustine teaches an interrogation and detection system for detection of surgical implements within a body of a patient (Figs. 1, 11-13), the interrogation and detection system comprising: a signal generator (30 Fig. 1 Par. 0078) configured to generate an energizing signal (Par. 0041, 0054, 0078) for an RF tag (60 Fig. 2 Par. 0075); and a surgical table (82 Figs. 11-13 Par. 0073) including: a mattress disposed on the surgical table (84 Figs. 11-13 Par. 0073), the mattress defining a longitudinal axis (Figs. 11-13); a first antenna operably coupled to the signal generator (88 Figs. 12-13 Par. 0073), the first antenna defining a first plane (Figs. 12, 13), wherein the first plane of the first antenna is oriented in a first orientation relative to the longitudinal axis of the mattress (Figs. 12, 13); and a second antenna operably coupled to the signal generator (two or more antennas 88 Figs. 12-13 Par. 0073), the second antenna defining a second plane (Figs. 12, 13), the second orientation being relative to the longitudinal axis of the mattress (Figs. 12, 13). Augustine is silent on wherein the second plane of the second antenna is oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna. However, Zinn et al. teaches wherein the second plane of the second antenna is oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna (120a, 120b Fig. 6D P. 6 L 15-24). In this particular case, providing two antennas in a different orientation such as a “V” shaped orientation is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Zinn et al. to provide different electromagnetic field characteristics to enhance the field (P. 6 L 15-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second plane of the second antenna of Augustine to be oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna based on the teachings of Zinn et al. as a result effect in order to provide different electromagnetic field characteristics and enhance the magnetic field. Regarding Claim 2 , Augustine as modified teaches further comprising an RF tag configured to transmit a return signal when energized (60 Fig. 2 Par. 0075), the RF tag affixed to a surgical implement (Par. 0053-0054, 0075-0076, 0081), wherein the first antenna is configured to receive a return signal transmitted by the RF tag (Par. 0053-0054, 0075-0076, 0081), and wherein the second antenna is configured to receive the return signal transmitted by the RF tag (Par. 0053-0054, 0075-0076, 0081). Regarding Claim 3 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first plane of the first antenna and the second plane of the second antenna are oriented in a “V” like shape (Zinn et al. Fig. 6D “V” shaped orientation as modified above). Regarding Claim 4 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna each are disposed within the mattress (Figs. 11-13 Par. 0073). Regarding Claim 5 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the mattress further includes an array of antennae, each defining a plane and each plane having a unique orientation relative to the longitudinal axis of the mattress (Fig. 13 as modified above with Zinn et al. Fig. 6D “V” shaped orientation). Regarding Claim 6 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna each include a planar coil antenna (implied from windings Par. 0007, Figs. 12, 13, however, better seen in Fig. 11). Regarding Claim 7 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna includes a first magnetic field and the second antenna includes a second magnetic field (implied from Par. 0058 and Zinn et al. P. 6 L 15-24 as modified above). Regarding Claim 8 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are each portion of a single antenna (Fig. 11 Par. 0042, 0046). Regarding Claim 9 , Augustine as modified teaches further comprising: a processor; and a memory, including instructions stored thereon (implicit from “The data received by the antennas 24, 26, and 28 of the sponge entry detection zone 16 may be delivered to control circuitry 30 which may record data regarding each sponge 2, 4, 6, 8 entering the sponge entry detection zone 16” Par. 0041), which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: determine whether a return signal was received from a RF tag that marks a surgical implement used in a procedure via at least one of the first antenna or second antenna (Par. 0041, 0044). Regarding Claim 10 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: transmit information to a display to display information related to the RF tag (display 34 Fig. 1 Par. 0041, 0045). Regarding Claim 11 , Augustine teaches a surgical mattress configured for detection of surgical implements within a body of a patient (Figs. 1, 11-13 Par. 0012, 0037), the surgical mattress comprising: a first antenna (88 Figs. 12-13 Par. 0073) operably coupled to a signal generator (30 Fig. 1 Par. 0078), the first antenna defining a first plane (Figs. 12, 13), wherein the first plane of the first antenna is oriented in a first orientation relative to a longitudinal axis of the mattress (Figs. 12, 13); and a second antenna operably coupled to the signal generator (two or more antennas 88 Figs. 12-13 Par. 0073), the second antenna defining a second plane (Figs. 12, 13), the second orientation being relative to the longitudinal axis of the mattress (Figs. 12, 13). Augustine is silent on wherein the second plane of the second antenna is oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna. However, Zinn et al. teaches wherein the second plane of the second antenna is oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna (120a, 120b Fig. 6D P. 6 L 15-24). In this particular case, providing two antennas in a different orientation such as a “V” shaped orientation is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Zinn et al. to provide different electromagnetic field characteristics to enhance the field (P. 6 L 15-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second plane of the second antenna of Augustine to be oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna based on the teachings of Zinn et al. as a result effect in order to provide different electromagnetic field characteristics and enhance the magnetic field. Regarding Claim 12 , Augustine as modified teaches further comprising an RF tag configured to transmit a return signal when energized (60 Fig. 2 Par. 0075), the RF tag affixed to a surgical implement (Par. 0053-0054, 0075-0076, 0081), wherein the first antenna is configured to receive a return signal transmitted by the RF tag (Par. 0053-0054, 0075-0076, 0081), and wherein the second antenna is configured to receive the return signal transmitted by the RF tag (Par. 0053-0054, 0075-0076, 0081). Regarding Claim 13 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna each include a coil antenna (implied from windings Par. 0007, Figs. 12, 13, however, better seen in Fig. 11). Regarding Claim 14 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna and the second antenna each are disposed within the mattress (Figs. 11-13 Par. 0073). Regarding Claim 15 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first plane of the first antenna and the second plane of the second antenna are oriented in a “V” like shape (Zinn et al. Fig. 6D “V” shaped orientation as modified above). Regarding Claim 16 , Augustine as modified teaches wherein the first antenna includes a first magnetic field and the second antenna includes a second magnetic field (implied from Par. 0058 and Zinn et al. P. 6 L 15-24 as modified above). Regarding Claim 17 , Augustine as modified teaches further comprising an array of antennae, each defining a plane and each plane having a unique orientation relative to the longitudinal axis of the mattress (Fig. 13 as modified above with Zinn et al. Fig. 6D “V” shaped orientation). Regarding Claim 18 , Augustine teaches a computer-implemented method for detection of surgical implements within a body of a patient (Figs. 1, 11-13 Abstract, Par. 0012, 0037), the method comprising: generating an energizing signal for an RF tag by a signal generator (30 Fig. 1 Par. 0078), the RF tag is affixed to a surgical implement; and receiving a return signal (Par. 0041, 0054, 0078) from the RF tag (60 Fig. 2 Par. 0075) by at least one of a first antenna or a second antenna (two or more antennas 88 Figs. 12-13 Par. 0073) operably coupled to the signal generator, the first antenna defining a first plane (Figs. 11-13), wherein the first plane of the first antenna is oriented in a first orientation (Figs. 11-13), the second antenna defining a second plane (Figs. 11-13). Augustine is silent on wherein the second plane of the second antenna is oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna. However, Zinn et al. teaches wherein the second plane of the second antenna is oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna (120a, 120b Fig. 6D P. 6 L 15-24). In this particular case, providing two antennas in a different orientation such as a “V” shaped orientation is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Zinn et al. to provide different electromagnetic field characteristics to enhance the field (P. 6 L 15-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the second plane of the second antenna of Augustine to be oriented in a second orientation different than the orientation of the first plane of the first antenna based on the teachings of Zinn et al. as a result effect in order to provide different electromagnetic field characteristics and enhance the magnetic field. Regarding Claim 19 , Augustine as modified teaches further comprising: determining whether a return signal was received from an RF tag that marks a surgical implement used in a procedure via at least one of the first antenna or second antenna (Par. 0041, 0044). Regarding Claim 20 , Augustine as modified teaches further comprising: transmitting information to a display to display information related to the RF tag (display 34 Fig. 1 Par. 0041, 0045). Conclusion The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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. /MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845 Application/Control Number: 18/853,460 Page 2 Art Unit: 2845
Prosecution Insights