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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 102022115035.6, filed on 06/15/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s submission for Domestic Benefit/National State Information under 35 U.S.C. 371 for PCT/EP2023/065985 with filing date 06/14/2023.
Drawings
FIG. 3 – The dashed-line convention used for elements 81 (PWR), 83 (CTRL), and 84 (LOGIC) is explained only in the last row of TABLE 2 ([0057]). The brief description of FIG. 3 at [0018] should be amended to note the convention, or the convention should be identified in the figure itself.
Claim 24 recites a logic element configured to perform a near-body radar measurement to obtain radar signals and to evaluate the radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract. No figure of record shows a radar marker that performs a radar measurement or that evaluates radar signals; FIG. 3 shows logic element 84 supplying control data to driver circuit 83 only, and FIG. 4 places the measurement and evaluation functions in system 70 (RF front end 93, processor 92, memory 91), separate from radar marker 75. Every feature specified in the claims must be shown. 37 CFR 1.83(a). Corrected drawings, or cancellation/amendment of claim 24, are required.
Any amended replacement drawing sheet must be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Radar.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0032]: “In particular, multiple antennas can be turned, which are arranged on different sides of a structure to be measured.” The word “turned” appears to be an error for “used” (or “tuned”). The sentence as written is unintelligible in context.
[0036]: “The evaluation can be used, in particular, to determine a synthetic language of the person.” This is inconsistent with [0022], which defines the term of art used throughout as “determination of a synthetic speech of a person.” Consistent terminology is required.
[0046]: “For example – depending on the mode of operation of the radar marker works – a corresponding effect could be exploited…” The clause is grammatically incomplete.
[0049]: “it is conceivable that there a discrete separation of the contributions 242, 243 is not implemented…” The word “there” is extraneous.
[0065]: “the features can be used … in other combinations or on alone their own…” The phrase is transposed.
[0007], [0022]: “techniques that allow to characterize” (twice) is non-idiomatic; “techniques that allow characterization of” is suggested.
TABLE 1: “Separation int the frequency domain” – apparent typographical error for “in.”
[0061]: “A radar marker as described in US 2021/0068705 A1 could be used.” If Applicant intends this document to be incorporated by reference, express incorporation-by-reference language is required. 37 CFR 1.57(c); MPEP 608.01(p). As presently worded the document is merely cited, and the disclosure it contains does not form part of this specification.
[0035] versus [0039] – inconsistency going to claim scope. Paragraph [0035] states that “[t]he vocal tract signal contribution can be generated by the interaction of the electromagnetic waves at the radar marker,” while [0039] states that “[t]he vocal tract signal contribution 242 is generated by the interaction of the electromagnetic waves of the underlying radar measurement at the person’s vocal tract.” These two statements attribute the same named signal contribution to interactions at two different locations. This inconsistency is noted, and correction of the specification is required so that the term “vocal tract signal contribution” is used consistently. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “vocal tract signal contribution” as the signal component generated by the electromagnetic wave interaction at the radar marker, consistent with claim 2 and [0035]. This interpretation is applied in the prior art rejections below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “generated by the interaction of the electromagnetic waves at the radar marker.” No interaction has been previously recited. Amendment to “an interaction” is required. The same informality appears in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “input data … comprises the radar signals” (subject-verb disagreement), whereas claim 3 recites “input data … includes.” Consistent usage is required.
Claim 7 recites “the electromagnetic waves of the radar measurements” (plural). Claim 1 provides antecedent basis only for “a near-body radar measurement” (singular) and “the radar measurement.” Amendment to “the radar measurement” is required.
Claim 10 recites “based on prior knowledge about the influence of the radar marker on the electromagnetic waves.” Claim 10 depends from claim 1, which recites only “a radar marker that influences electromagnetic waves”; the noun “an influence” is first introduced in claim 2, from which claim 10 does not depend. Amendment to “an influence” is required.
Claim 17 recites “configured to switch the adjustable element at least at 500 Hz.” The construction is grammatically awkward; “at a rate of at least 500 Hz” – the phrasing used in the specification at TABLE 2 – is suggested.
Claim 20 recites “depending on the distance of the active radar marker to a counter-electrode.” The definite article “the” is used on first appearance; no distance has previously been recited in claim 20 or claim 13. Amendment to “a distance” is required. The same informality (“a distance”) appears in claim 21, where “a distance” is used correctly on first appearance but the Examiner notes it for completeness.
Claim 24 recites “further comprising a logic element configured to: perform … and evaluate …” Because claim 24 depends from claim 13, the antecedent for “the radar marker” in claim 24 is “an active radar marker” of claim 13; consistent nomenclature (“the active radar marker”) should be used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an adjustable element that can be switched between different settings” – claims 13, 14, 17, 20, 21
Prong (A): “element” is a generic placeholder expressly identified in MPEP 2181 as a nonce substitute for “means.” The modifier “adjustable” describes a capability, not a structure.
Prong (B): the placeholder is modified by functional language – “that can be switched between different settings.”
Prong (C): claim 13 recites no structure, material, or acts for performing the switching function.
“a logic element that is designed to provide control data” – claim 14 (and claims 15, 16 by dependency)
Prong (A): “element” is a generic placeholder; “logic” is a descriptor of purpose, not a definite structure.
Prong (B): modified by the function “to provide control data.”
Prong (C): no structure is recited in the claim for providing the control data.
“a logic element configured to: perform a near-body radar measurement … and evaluate the radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract” – claim 24
Prongs (A) and (B) are met for the reasons given in (b). The placeholder “logic element” is modified by two functions.
Prong (C): claim 24 recites no structure for either function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 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 24 depends from Claim 13 and recites “a logic element configured to: perform a near-body radar measurement to obtain radar signals … and evaluate the radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the logic element is a component of the active radar marker of Claim 13, and it is the logic element that performs, or at a minimum conduct, both the radar measurement and the evaluation of the resulting radar signals.
Claim 24 is not an original claim. Claim 24 as filed in the international application (WO 2023/242283 A1) recited only that the active radar marker “is used in the method according to any one of claims 1 to 12” (“wobei der aktive Radarmarker im Verfahren nach einem der Ansprüche 1 bis 12 verwendet wird”). The logic element and the two functions now recited were added by amendment. The presumption that an original claim is adequately described therefore does not apply, and the claim must find support in the application as originally filed. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a); MPEP § 2163.06. Subject matter added to a claim that is not supported by the original disclosure is rejected under § 112(a). MPEP § 2163.06. Applicant should point to where the original disclosure supports the amendment. MPEP § 2163.06.
The specification describes logic element 84 of active radar marker 80 as providing control data that driver circuit 83 uses to switch adjustable element 82. See [0057] and Table 2. The disclosed memory implementation stores control data, and the disclosed sensor implementation determines control data from a local measurement, such as a temperature or an acceleration. See [0057] and Table 2. Neither is described as performing a radar measurement or evaluating radar signals. By contrast, the specification assigns emission and reception of the radar signals to RF front end 93 and antenna 98 of system 70. See [0058]. It assigns processing of the received radar signals, and characterization of the vocal tract, to processor 92 operating on program code from memory 91. See [0064]. FIG. 4 depicts radar marker 75 in the person’s vocal tract with no connection to antenna 98, RF front end 93, processor 92, or memory 91, and [0061] identifies marker 75 as the marker of FIG. 3 or another marker, including a passive marker having a non-adjustable reflector structure. No other passage identifies a logic element of the marker that performs either recited function. The general statements that functional entities may be implemented in hardware or software ([0021]) and that features may be combined ([0065]) say nothing about which component performs the radar measurement or the evaluation. The description of the international application as filed (WO 2023/242283 A1) is to the same effect, and its claims 13 and 14 likewise recite a logic element that provides control data.
Original claim 24 does not supply the missing support. That claim recited that the marker “is used in” the method of claims 1 to 12. These methods recite performing the radar measurement and evaluating the radar signals as steps, with the radar marker arranged in or on the vocal tract as an element of the measurement. They do not assign either step to the marker, much less to a logic element within it. A marker that is used in a method whose steps are carried out by a separate system is consistent with [0058], [0061], [0064], and FIG. 4, and does not convey a marker that carries out the steps itself.
The disclosure therefore describes a marker that influences electromagnetic waves and a separate system that obtains and evaluates radar signals. Each of the two functions is individually described, but the disclosure does not describe their allocation to a logic element of the active radar marker, and it identifies no algorithm, circuit, or other structure by which such a logic element would carry them out. A description of those functions in a different component does not show possession of the claimed arrangement, because possession is shown by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The disclosure does support a system in which the marker influences the electromagnetic waves while RF front end 93, antenna 98, processor 92, and memory 91 perform the radar measurement and the characterization. See [0058], [0061], and [0064]; FIG. 4. Claim 24 recites a different allocation of those functions. Accordingly, the amendment adds subject matter that the original disclosure does not reasonably convey, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the inventors, as of the effective filing date, had possession of the active radar marker of claim 24 having a logic element that performs the near-body radar measurement and evaluates the resulting radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), 132(a); MPEP §§ 2163, 2163.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Greene et al. (‘705) discloses:
Greene et al. (‘705) discloses: An active radar marker for an in-body application, comprising: ([0055]: “the energy converter 52 includes a plurality of photosensitive diodes capable of transforming incident light (e.g., infrared light) striking them into electrical energy”; [0095]: “Once the marker(s) 40 is implanted, as shown in FIG. 6, the probe 1020 may be placed against a patient’s skin”). The marker 40 is implanted within the patient’s body and is therefore a marker for an in-body application. The marker is active within the meaning given the term above, because Greene et al. discloses at [0073] that the marker’s own processor determines whether to permit the switching to occur.
Greene et al. (‘705) discloses: an adjustable element that can be switched between different settings, ([0061]: “FIG. 3A shows the switch 54 in the open configuration when infrared light is absent, while FIG. 3B shows the switch 54 in the closed configuration when infrared light 70 strikes the diodes 52, thereby connecting both antennas 44 together”). The switch 54, implemented as the FET 154 in the embodiment of FIGS. 4A and 4B, is switched between an open setting and a closed setting.
Greene et al. (‘705) discloses: and a reflector structure that is configured to influence electromagnetic waves of a radar measurement differently depending on the setting of the adjustable element, ([0061]: “the marker 40 provides a passive reflector tag that includes what equates to a high-frequency switch in the middle of the marker 40. By being able to change the switch 54 from closed to open, the reflective properties of the effective antenna provided by the antennas 44 may be changed significantly”; [0096]: “the modulation of the marker 40 may modify the impedance of the marker 40 and/or the tissue within which the marker 40 is implanted”). Antennas 44 and the substrate 50 constitute the reflector structure, and the reflective properties of that structure differ according to whether the switch 54 is open or closed.
Greene et al. (‘705) discloses: wherein the active radar marker is configured to change the setting of the adjustable element to encode data into the electromagnetic waves in this way. ([0073]: “the processor may determine whether the pulses include a predetermined bit code assigned to the marker 140. If so, the processor may couple the diodes 152 to the FET 154 such that subsequent infrared pulses close and open the switch between the antennas 144, thereby modulating the reflective properties of the marker 140”; [0074]: “a plurality of markers (not shown) may be implanted within a patient’s body that include respective processors assigned different bit codes”; [0103]: “the inactive markers produce no detectable response while the activated marker modulates the radar signals reflected back to the probe 1020”).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “data” is information, and “encode data into the electromagnetic waves” requires only that the state of the returned electromagnetic waves convey that information. In Greene et al., each marker carries a distinct assigned bit code, and each marker’s own processor determines whether that marker will modulate the returned radar signals. The presence or absence of modulation in the return, and the correspondence of that modulation to the bit code then in use, conveys the identity of the responding marker to the probe. The marker accomplishes this by changing the setting of the switch, which is the manner recited by the phrase “in this way.” Applicant’s own specification confirms that this reading is the intended one, stating at [0051] that “the change in the amplitude of the reflected electromagnetic waves at the radar marker encodes corresponding data.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (US 2014/0342324 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: A method for characterizing a person’s vocal tract, comprising: to the extent the preamble is limiting, a method of interrogating a marker implanted within a patient’s body ([0016]: “delivering energy pulses into the patient’s body may include delivering infrared light into the patient’s body, and the energy converter may include one or more photosensitive diodes that transform the infrared light into electrical energy to open and close the switch to modulate the electromagnetic signals from the probe reflected by the marker”). The vocal tract aspect of the preamble is addressed below in connection with the final step of the claim.
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: performing a near-body radar measurement to obtain radar signals, (Fig. 6, [0098]: “the distal end 1024 of the probe 1020 may be placed adjacent or in contact with the patient’s skin … The transmit antenna (not shown) of the probe 1020 may emit transmit signals 1034T that travel through the tissue and are reflected off of the marker 40. Return signals 1034R may be reflected back to the receive antenna (not shown) in the probe 1020”). Probe 1020 is placed in contact with the patient’s skin, transmits radar signals into the body, and receives the reflected radar signals, which constitutes performing a near-body radar measurement to obtain radar signals.
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein a radar marker that influences electromagnetic waves of the radar measurement ([0062]: “the switch 54 provides periodic modulation of reflective properties of the marker 40”).
Greene et al. (‘705) does not teach that the radar marker is arranged in or on the person’s vocal tract, and evaluating the radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract. Greene et al. is directed throughout to markers implanted in breast tissue for lumpectomy localization and does not teach placement of a marker at the tongue or elsewhere in the vocal tract, nor characterization of a vocal tract.
However, Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches: is arranged in or on the person’s vocal tract, ([0003]: “an apparatus for real-time tracking of a subject’s tongue during speech by way of a tracer unit carried by the tongue of a subject and a plurality of sensors for detecting at least one position and/or orientation of the tracer in real time”; Fig. 1, [0115]: “The tracer unit 1 can be coated with a non-magnetic biocompatible material, such as gold, platinum, or a polymer, and non-obstructively affixed to the tongue. "Affixed to the tongue" as used herein refers to secured to the tongue such that tracer unit 1 is not easily dislodged from the tongue and tracks tongue movement accurately”). The tracer unit is affixed to the surface of the tongue, and the tongue is a structure of the vocal tract, so the tracer unit is arranged on the person’s vocal tract.
However, Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches: and evaluating the radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract. ([0004]: “a multi-functional, scalable tongue tracking system (TTS) that can continuously and wirelessly track the tongue’s position in real time and use that information, for example and not limitation, to measure, guide, create, and improve speech”; [0095]: “the TTS system and apparatus can track a user’s tongue characteristic during speech. The tongue characteristic can include, for example and not limitation, one or more of a position of the tracer unit, an orientation of the tracer unit … a physical contact between the tongue and a palate of the user”). Determining the position and orientation of a tracer carried by the tongue, and the contact between the tongue and the palate, characterizes the vocal tract.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the interrogated marker of Greene et al. on the tongue as taught by Ghovanloo et al., and to evaluate the resulting returned radar signals to characterize the vocal tract as Ghovanloo et al. evaluates the position of its tracer. One would have been motivated to do so because Ghovanloo et al. identifies at [0003] and [0004] a specific unmet need for real-time, continuous tracking of the tongue during speech, and implements that tracking by placing an artificial tracer on the tongue and localizing it from outside the mouth. Greene et al. supplies precisely such a localization mechanism operating through tissue, disclosing at [0062] that the switching of its marker was adopted to overcome the small radar cross section of an implanted marker and contamination of the reflected signal by tissue inhomogeneity and near-field effects. A practitioner seeking to track a tongue-borne marker faces the same signal-recovery problem that Greene et al. addresses, in the same near-field, tissue-loaded geometry. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate on the same physical premise, namely a small passive artificial element carried within or on soft tissue and localized by an external interrogator held immediately adjacent the tissue. Greene et al. teaches at [0106] interrogation at about 2.5 GHz, a frequency at which propagation through the few centimeters of tissue separating an external oral appliance from a tongue-borne marker is well within the operating range Greene et al. already demonstrates for breast tissue. Greene et al.’s marker 40 is described at [0055] as a small, encapsulated package, so no change in scale is required for oral placement.
Regarding Claim 2, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: based on prior knowledge about an influence of the radar marker on the electromagnetic waves: determining a vocal tract signal contribution of the radar signals, which is generated by the interaction of the electromagnetic waves at the radar marker, ([0063]: “digital signal processing of the received signals using ultra-wideband (UWB) radar uses synchronous detection of the signal modulated with marker switching frequency. This significantly increases the signal-to-noise (SNR) on the marker signal because other contaminating signals remain unchanged within the modulation period”; [0095]: “the reflected signals from the two states (switch 54 open and closed) may be subtracted from one another, substantially eliminated the other noise, and allowing the probe 1020 to identify and/or locate the marker 40”). The marker switching frequency is imposed and therefore known by the probe, and that knowledge of the marker’s influence on the electromagnetic waves is used to isolate the signal contribution generated at the marker.
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the vocal tract signal contribution of the radar signals is evaluated to characterize the vocal tract. ([0099]: “This causes the marker 40 to change the phase of and/or otherwise modulate the signals reflected back to the probe 1020, which may process the signals, e.g., by subtraction, to identify and/or locate the marker 40”), as combined with Ghovanloo et al. in Claim 1 above for the vocal tract aspect.
Regarding Claim 3, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 2:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not teach that wherein input data of a machine-learned algorithm includes the vocal tract signal contribution, wherein the machine-learned algorithm provides output data that characterize the vocal tract. Greene et al. teaches synchronous detection and subtraction at [0063] and [0095] and does not teach any machine-learned algorithm.
However, Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches ([0086]: “Numerical methods for minimizing the cost function by the TTS signal processing algorithm can include, but are not limited to, direct inversion, iterative methods … Bayesian and probabilistic methods (particle filters, unscented Kalman filters), neural networks, and other numerical data analysis and machine-learning techniques”; [0086]: “classification of trajectories using machine learning methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), K-nearest neighbors, support vector machines (SVM), and neural networks”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply the isolated marker signal contribution of Greene et al. as input data to a machine-learned algorithm as taught by Ghovanloo et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. terminates its processing at [0100] with a two-step determination of amplitude and time delay, which yields a scalar range but not a characterization of the surrounding anatomy. Ghovanloo et al. explains at [0086] that recovering the position and orientation of a tracer from external sensor measurements is a cost-function minimization problem and identifies neural networks and other machine-learning techniques as the numerical methods applied to solve it. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the input to the algorithm of Ghovanloo et al. is a set of scalar measurements of the field at known sensor locations, and the marker signal contribution isolated by Greene et al. at [0095] is a measurement of the same character.
Regarding Claim 4, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 3:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: determining a complementary signal contribution of the radar signals that is complementary to the vocal tract signal contribution, ([0063]: “other contaminating signals remain unchanged within the modulation period”; [0062]: “contamination of the received reflected signal, e.g., due to (a) scattering caused by tissue inhomogeneity; (b) cross-talk between transmit and receive antennas of the probe; and (c) signal distortions due to near field effects”). The signal component that remains unchanged within the modulation period is determined and separated from the marker contribution and is complementary to it.
Greene et al. (‘705) does not teach that wherein the input data of the machine-learned algorithm further includes the complementary signal contribution.
However, Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches ([0089]: “In some embodiments, the data from the tracer unit and the data from the additional sensors can be processed, including for example and not limitation, filtering and synchronizing”; [0089]: “data from sensors for sound recording and lip tracking/lip gesture tracking … The electrode array adapted for electropalatography can provide, for example and not limitation, information about the physical contacts made between the user’s tongue and palate during speech”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply the complementary signal contribution determined by Greene et al. to the machine-learned algorithm of Ghovanloo et al. in addition to the marker signal contribution. One would have been motivated to do so because the component that Greene et al. characterizes at [0062] as contamination is the return from the tissue itself, and Ghovanloo et al. teaches at [0089] that characterization of the vocal tract is improved by combining tracer data with independently acquired data describing the surrounding articulators. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Greene et al. at [0095] already separates the two components by subtraction, so both are available in the processor at the same instant and in the same format.
Regarding Claim 5, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 2:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: based on further prior knowledge about a further influence of a further radar marker, arranged at a distance from the radar marker, on the electromagnetic waves: determining a further signal contribution of the radar signals, which is generated by the interaction of the electromagnetic waves at the further radar marker, ([0102]: “a plurality of markers (not shown) may be implanted within a breast 90 spaced apart around a lesion, e.g., to define a desired margin for a lumpectomy. The probe 1020 may be used to activate each of the markers, e.g., in a predetermined sequence or other procedure, such that information may be provided regarding each of the markers”; [0074]: “a plurality of markers (not shown) may be implanted within a patient’s body that include respective processors assigned different bit codes”).
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the further signal contribution of the radar signals is evaluated to characterize the vocal tract. ([0103]: “the inactive markers produce no detectable response while the activated marker modulates the radar signals reflected back to the probe 1020”), as combined with Ghovanloo et al. in Claim 1 above for the vocal tract aspect.
Regarding Claim 6, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches: wherein input data of a machine-learned algorithm comprises the radar signals, wherein the machine-learned algorithm provides output data that characterize the vocal tract. ([0086]: “neural networks, and other numerical data analysis and machine-learning techniques”). Claim 6 differs from Claim 3 only in that the input data comprises the radar signals as received rather than the isolated marker contribution.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply the radar signals obtained by Greene et al. as input data to the machine-learned algorithm of Ghovanloo et al. One would have been motivated to do so for the reasons given in Claim 3 above, and additionally because supplying the received signals directly dispenses with the synchronous detection stage that Greene et al. describes at [0063]. There is a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons given in Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the radar marker delays a propagation time of the electromagnetic waves of the radar measurements. ([0100]: “the time delay between the time the transmit signal 1034T is transmitted by the transmit antenna and the time the return signal 1034R is received by the receive antenna may be directly proportional to the distance from the probe 1020 to the marker 40, and the processor may determine the distance based on this time delay”). The round-trip path through the marker imposes a delay on the propagation time of the electromagnetic waves, and that delay is measured to determine range.
Regarding Claim 9, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the radar marker effects a modulation of the electromagnetic waves of the radar measurement. ([0062]: “the switch 54 provides periodic modulation of reflective properties of the marker 40”; [0061]: “the switch 54 may change the polarity or otherwise modulate signals reflected from the marker 40 as the switch 54 is opened and closed”).
Regarding Claim 10, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: based on prior knowledge about the influence of the radar marker on the electromagnetic waves: evaluating the radar signals to determine data that are sent by the radar marker, ([0073]: “the processor may determine whether the pulses include a predetermined bit code assigned to the marker 140. If so, the processor may couple the diodes 152 to the FET 154 such that subsequent infrared pulses close and open the switch between the antennas 144, thereby modulating the reflective properties of the marker 140”; [0103]: “the probe 1020 may include codes in the infrared pulses, e.g., to activate and/or deactivate individual markers such only an activated marker opens and closes the switch to modulate radar signals from the probe 1020. Thus, when the probe 1020 subtracts the received modulated signals, the inactive markers produce no detectable response”).
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the data sent by the radar marker are evaluated to characterize the vocal tract. ([0102]: “information may be provided regarding each of the markers”), as combined with Ghovanloo et al. in Claim 1 above for the vocal tract aspect.
Regarding Claim 11, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 10:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches: wherein the data are indicative of a distance of the radar marker to a predetermined anatomical feature of the person. ([0095]: “The tongue characteristic can include, for example and not limitation, one or more of a position of the tracer unit, an orientation of the tracer unit … a physical contact between the tongue and a palate of the user”; [0102]: “The magnetic sensors can be positioned proximal the tracer unit, and in some embodiments can be mounted on a dental retainer and attached on the outside of the teeth to measure the magnetic field from different angles”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to express the marker position determined by Greene et al. as a distance to a predetermined anatomical feature as taught by Ghovanloo et al. One would have been motivated to do so because the quantity of clinical interest in Ghovanloo et al. is the configuration of the articulators relative to one another, and Ghovanloo et al. teaches at [0095] that the tongue characteristic of interest includes contact between the tongue and the palate. A distance referenced to a hand-held instrument varies with the placement of that instrument, whereas Ghovanloo et al. at [0102] resolves this by referencing the measurement to sensors fixed to the teeth. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the conversion is a coordinate transformation applied to a position that Greene et al. already computes at [0100].
Regarding Claim 24, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 13:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: further comprising a logic element configured to: ([0072]: “the marker 140 (or any of the other markers herein) may include a processor (not shown) coupled to the diodes 152 for identifying a code or message included in infrared signals transmitted to the marker 140”).
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: perform a near-body radar measurement to obtain radar signals, ([0098]: “The transmit antenna (not shown) of the probe 1020 may emit transmit signals 1034T that travel through the tissue and are reflected off of the marker 40. Return signals 1034R may be reflected back to the receive antenna (not shown) in the probe 1020”; [0073]: “the processor may couple the diodes 152 to the FET 154 such that subsequent infrared pulses close and open the switch between the antennas 144, thereby modulating the reflective properties of the marker 140”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the marker’s processor participates in performing the radar measurement by gating the modulation on which the measurement depends.
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches: wherein the radar marker that influences electromagnetic waves of the radar measurement is arranged in or on a person’s vocal tract, and evaluate the radar signals to characterize the person’s vocal tract. ([0102]: “The tracer unit can comprise a magnet contained within a non-magnetic fixture and affixed to the tongue”; [0004]: “a multi-functional, scalable tongue tracking system (TTS) that can continuously and wirelessly track the tongue’s position in real time and use that information, for example and not limitation, to measure, guide, create, and improve speech”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the marker of Greene et al. on the tongue and to evaluate the returned radar signals to characterize the vocal tract, for the reasons and with the motivation and expectation of success set forth in Claim 1 of Rejection II above, which are incorporated here.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (US 2014/0342324 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0255995 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 1:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not teach that the radar marker changes a frequency of the electromagnetic waves of the radar measurement. The marker of Greene et al. alters the amplitude, phase, and impedance of the reflected signal by opening and closing the switch 54, as taught at [0061] and [0099], and returns the signal at the frequency at which it was transmitted.
However, Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the radar marker changes a frequency of the electromagnetic waves of the radar measurement. ([0024]: “The analog sensor generates a variable frequency signal whose frequency precisely represents the data to be retrieved”; [0057]: “A strong 13.56 MHz signal was turned on/off at a rate of 35 Hz and subsequently feed to the antenna. Here, whenever the 13.56 MHz signal is turned off, the wireless pressure sensor ‘wakes up’ and transmits the pressure information in the form of electrical frequency”; [0052]: “a coil (L2) serves as a transmitting coil”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the marker of Greene et al. to return the interrogation at a frequency differing from the transmitted frequency, in the manner taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. identifies at [0062] cross-talk between the transmit and receive antennas of the probe, and contamination of the reflected signal by tissue scattering and near-field effects, as the principal obstacles to detecting the marker. Park et al. teaches at [0057] an architecture in which the interrogating field and the returned information occupy different frequencies, so that the return is separated from the interrogation in the frequency domain. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Park et al. at [0032] and [0052] implements the frequency-offset return with a passive energy harvesting stage and a separate transmitting coil in an implantable package, and Greene et al. at [0055] already provides an in-marker energy converter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (US 2014/0342324 A1) and further in view of Hamel et al. (US 2004/0078662 A1).
Claim 12 depends from Claim 10, and the limitations of Claims 1 and 10 are taught by Greene et al. in view of Ghovanloo et al.. Hamel et al. (‘662) defines its field in [0011] as devices that sense, store and transmit data, attached to a structure or live subject and powered by energy harvested from the environment.
Regarding Claim 12, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) teaches the method according to Claim 10:
Greene et al. (‘705) and Ghovanloo et al. (‘324) do not teach that the data are indicative of an acceleration of the radar marker. The data conveyed by the marker of Greene et al. are limited to the marker’s assigned bit code and the resulting presence or absence of modulation. Greene et al. teaches no sensor within the marker.
However, Hamel et al. (‘662) teaches: wherein the data are indicative of an acceleration of the radar marker. ([0055]: “Wireless sensing module 44 includes microcontroller or microprocessor 48, which controls provision of power to A/D converter 50, sensors 52, non-volatile memory 54, and RF transmitter 56, as shown in FIG. 5. Sensors can include such sensors as a temperature sensor, a strain gauge, a pressure sensor, a magnetic field sensor, an accelerometer, or a DVRT”; [0056]: “Controller 46 monitors charge stored on storage capacitor 42, and when sufficient, provides Vcc power to wireless sensing module 44 for transmitting sensor data through antenna 68”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an accelerometer within the marker of Greene et al. and to convey the resulting acceleration data in the modulated return, as taught by Hamel et al. One would have been motivated to do so because the combination of Greene et al. and Ghovanloo et al. is directed to tracking a marker carried by the tongue during speech, which is a rapidly moving articulator, and Ghovanloo et al. teaches at [0004] that the tracking must be continuous and in real time. Hamel et al. teaches at [0055] that a wirelessly powered node may carry an accelerometer among its sensors and report its output. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamel et al. at [0055] and [0056] implements the sensor, the microcontroller, and the return path in a node that operates entirely on harvested energy without a battery, which is the same power regime in which the marker of Greene et al. operates.
Claims 14, 16-18, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0255995 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 13:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the adjustable element is a switch element that can be switched between at least two switch positions, ([0061]: “FIG. 3A shows the switch 54 in the open configuration when infrared light is absent, while FIG. 3B shows the switch 54 in the closed configuration when infrared light 70 strikes the diodes 52”).
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: an energy source that is designed to provide energy for switching the switch element between the at least two switch positions, ([0055]: “the energy converter 52 includes a plurality of photosensitive diodes capable of transforming incident light (e.g., infrared light) striking them into electrical energy (e.g., a predetermined minimum voltage)”).
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: a logic element that is designed to provide control data, ([0072]: “the marker 140 (or any of the other markers herein) may include a processor (not shown) coupled to the diodes 152 for identifying a code or message included in infrared signals transmitted to the marker 140”; [0073]: “the processor may determine whether the pulses include a predetermined bit code assigned to the marker 140”).
Greene et al. (‘705) does not teach a driver circuit that is configured to switch the switch element between the at least two switch positions based on the control data. Claim 14 recites the logic element and the driver circuit as separate components. Greene et al. teaches at [0072] only a single processor that both identifies the code and provides the resulting control signal and teaches no driver stage distinct from that processor.
However, Park et al. (‘995) teaches: a driver circuit that is configured to switch the switch element between the at least two switch positions based on the control data. ([0051]: “the MCU controls the timing of the rest of the circuit. In addition, the MCU can provide the control signal for the transducing A-to-D converting unit … Conventional off-the-shelf MCU chips typically comprise a frequency generator, a counter, and a comparator with voltage references”; Claim 15: “a frequency generator electrically coupled to the microcontroller, wherein the frequency generator is configured to activate upon receipt of the start signal”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the switching path of Greene et al. as a driver stage separate from and responsive to the marker’s processor, in the manner taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. constrains the marker’s power budget severely, disclosing at [0060] that the photosensitive diodes must operate the switch on approximately half a volt. A processor that must both perform code recognition and directly drive the gate of a high-frequency switch is required to satisfy two incompatible design objectives simultaneously. Park et al. teaches at [0051] the conventional partition that resolves this. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Park et al. states at [0051] that conventional off-the-shelf microcontroller chips already contain the frequency generator, counter, and comparator, and that the arrangement can be realized with minimal components added.
Regarding Claim 16, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 14:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the logic element comprises a sensor that is configured to determine at least a portion of the control data based on a measurement. (Claim 1: “a transducing A-to-D converter unit comprising a passive electrical transducer configured to respond to variations in a physical property and a converter configured to measure a characteristic value of the passive electrical transducer and provide a digital signal that is indicative of the measured characteristic value”; [0050]: “The MCU reads the digital output and discharges the capacitor in preparation for the next measurement. In one aspect, the digital output is a number that is substantially proportional to the capacitance value”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include within the logic element of the marker of Greene et al. a sensor that determines a portion of the control data from a measurement, as taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. teaches at [0102] that the purpose of interrogating the marker is that “information may be provided regarding each of the markers,” yet the only information the marker of Greene et al. can supply is its own identity. Park et al. teaches the mechanism by which a wirelessly interrogated implant converts a measured physical property into the data it returns. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Greene et al. at [0072] already provides a processor within the marker, and Park et al. at [0051] shows that reading a transducer is performed by a conventional off-shelf microcontroller with minimal added components.
Regarding Claim 17, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 14:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the driver circuit is configured to switch the adjustable element at least at 500 Hz. ([0050]: “the digital output resolution depends on the frequency of the frequency generator, which should be kept high enough to support resolution of the capacitance value necessary for meaningful output to the end user of the system”; [0057]: “the wireless pressure sensor “wakes up” and transmits the pressure information in the form of electrical frequency”; FIG. 12, showing a transmitted frequency varying at 0.45 kHz/mmHg over the measured pressure range). A PHOSITA would infer from the sensitivity shown in FIG. 12, namely 450 Hz of frequency shift per millimeter of mercury (mmHg) across a range spanning tens of mmHg, that the frequency generator of Park et al. operates at a frequency of many kilohertz, and therefore more than 500 Hz.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the driver circuit of the marker of Greene et al. at a switching frequency of at least 500 Hz, as taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. explains at [0063] that the switching frequency is the basis for synchronous detection, and that the recovery of the marker signal depends on the contaminating signals remaining unchanged within the modulation period. A short modulation period, and therefore a high switching frequency, directly serves that requirement. Park et al. supplies the corresponding teaching from the side of the returned data, stating at [0050] that the frequency generator must be kept high enough to support the required output resolution. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the switching element of Greene et al. is described at [0061] as “what equates to a high-frequency switch in the middle of the marker 40,” so the switch is already specified for operation far above the recited threshold.
Regarding Claim 18, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 14:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the energy source comprises a rectifier circuit which is configured to provide a direct current based on electromagnetic waves. ([0028]: “FIG. 1 shows one embodiment of a power harvesting unit that employs a voltage doubling scheme. When the interrogator an generates energizing magnetic field in proximity to the sensor, the small antenna (Lr) and a capacitor (Cr) pick up the AC voltage in resonance mode. That AC voltage is rectified and charged to a first capacitor C2 through diode D1. … the AC voltage available in Lr and Cr is doubled and stored to a second capacitor, Cs, as a DC voltage to be used for sensor operation at a subsequent time”; [0032]: “the power harvesting unit is a LC--tank that is followed by a rectification stage and an optional voltage multiplication stage. It is then an energy storage stage, such as a capacitor with a desired energy storage space”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive the marker’s operating energy from the interrogating electromagnetic waves by means of a rectifier circuit as taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because the arrangement of Greene et al. requires the probe to deliver two distinct energy channels into the body, namely the radar signal and infrared light pulses, and requires the marker package to be at least partially transparent so that light reaches the diodes. Park et al. teaches at [0028] and [0032] that the same field used to interrogate the implant can be rectified to power it, eliminating the second energy channel and the optical transparency requirement. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Greene et al. at [0106] teaches interrogation with a substantially continuous narrow-band signal, which is a suitable source for rectification, and at [0060] establishes that the switching requires only about half a volt at negligible current.
Regarding Claim 20, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 13:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the reflector structure together with the adjustable element implements a high-frequency oscillating circuit, ([0038]: “Conventionally, a passive (no battery) LC resonant circuit is composed of two electrical passive components that are connected in series: a coil or inductor ("L"), and a capacitor ("C"). Such a passive electrical circuit exhibits electrical resonance when subjected to an alternating electromagnetic field. In one aspect, the electrical resonance is particularly acute for a specific frequency value or range of the impinging signal. When the impinging signal substantially reaches the resonant frequency of the LC resonant circuit inside the sensor assembly, a pronounced disturbance of the field can be detected wirelessly.”).
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the adjustable element is a variable capacitance that is configured to change its capacitance value depending on the distance of the active radar marker to a counter-electrode. (Claim 11: “the passive electrical transducer comprises a variable gap capacitor”; [0052]: “a capacitor (C10) or a resistor (R5) varies predictably with the measured physical property”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the adjustable element of the marker of Greene et al. as a variable gap capacitor forming a resonant circuit with the reflector structure, as taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. at [0071] states that “the construction of the antennas 144 and substrate 150 may be modified to provide a complex impedance that may be changed to provide desired detection characteristics for the final marker 140,” and thereby invites variation in the reactive elements of the reflector structure. Park et al. teaches at [0038] the specific reactive arrangement that produces a pronounced, externally detectable disturbance of the impinging field. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Park et al. at [0039] and [0040] describes the resonant circuit as manufacturable by conventional micro-machining techniques on biocompatible polymer substrates for implanted use.
Regarding Claim 21, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 13:
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: wherein the adjustable element is a switch element that can be switched between at least two switch positions, ([0061]: “FIG. 3A shows the switch 54 in the open configuration when infrared light is absent, while FIG. 3B shows the switch 54 in the closed configuration when infrared light 70 strikes the diodes 52”).
Greene et al. (‘705) teaches: an energy source that is designed to provide energy for switching the switch element between the at least two switch positions, ([0060]: “sufficient voltage (e.g., about a half Volt (0.5 V)) when exposed to light to open and close the switch 54”).
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: a variable oscillator having a variable capacitance, wherein the variable oscillator is configured to switch the switch element between the at least two switch positions at a variable switching frequency that is determined in dependence on a capacitance value of the variable capacitance, ([0035]: “the transducing oscillator unit converts physical properties such as, but not limited to, pressure, temperature, stress and the like to electrical signals. Subsequently, the electrical signals set the electrical oscillation frequency, which is transmitted to the interrogator”; [0036]: “R and C are, respectively, the resistor and capacitor values that sense the physical property of interest”; [0037]: “the exemplary circuit is configured such that the oscillator frequency can be varied by the value of C10 and R5 and can be available through the #5 node in order to be transmitted back to the reader or interrogator wirelessly”).
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the capacitance value of the variable capacitance depends on a distance between an electrode of the variable capacitance and a counter-electrode. (Claim 11: “the passive electrical transducer comprises a variable gap capacitor”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the switch element of the marker of Greene et al. from an oscillator whose frequency is set by a variable gap capacitance, as taught by Park et al. One would have been motivated to do so because the marker of Greene et al. depends at [0063] on the probe imposing the switching frequency through synchronized infrared pulses, so the returned modulation carries no information originating at the marker beyond the marker’s identity. Park et al. teaches at [0037] a directly substituted arrangement in which the modulation rate is itself the measurand, being set by the sensing capacitance and read out by the interrogator. There is a reasonable expectation of success because the modification substitutes an internal oscillator for an externally imposed pulse train at a node that Greene et al. has already defined. Park et al. addresses at [0033] the one operating requirement this introduces, namely that the oscillator’s supply be regulated, and teaches the linear regulator and under-voltage lockout that satisfy it within the harvested-energy budget of an implant.
Regarding Claim 23, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 13:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Park et al. (‘995) teaches: wherein the reflector structure comprises a frequency converter structure for the electromagnetic waves. ([0025]: “the analog wireless sensor is comprised of the following components: a power harvesting unit, an ‘end of burst’ detection unit, a voltage regulation unit, a transducing oscillator unit, and a transmitting coil”; [0035]: “the electrical signals set the electrical oscillation frequency, which is transmitted to the interrogator”; [0052]: “a coil (L2) serves as a transmitting coil”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the transducing oscillator unit and transmitting coil of Park et al. into the reflector structure of the marker of Greene et al. One would have been motivated to do so for the reasons set forth in the Claim 8 above, namely that every contaminating contribution identified by Greene et al. at [0062] returns at the transmitted frequency, and that placing the marker return at a different frequency separates it from that contamination in the frequency domain. There is a reasonable expectation of success for the reasons set forth in Claim 8 above.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0255995 A1) and further in view of Hamel et al. (US 2004/0078662 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) and further in view of Hamel et al. (‘662) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 14:
Greene et al. (‘705) and Park et al. (‘955) do not explicitly teach, but Hamel et al. (‘662) teaches: wherein the logic element comprises a non-volatile memory that is configured to store at least a portion of the control data. ([0055]: “Wireless sensing module 44 includes microcontroller or microprocessor 48, which controls provision of power to A/D converter 50, sensors 52, non-volatile memory 54, and RF transmitter 56”; “Microcontroller 48 also controls flow of data from A/D converter 50, from sensors 52, to and from nonvolatile memory 54 and to RF transmitter 56”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a non-volatile memory within the logic element of the marker of Greene et al. as taught by Hamel et al. One would have been motivated to do so because the marker of Greene et al. is powered only while the probe is illuminating it, as taught at [0055] and [0060], so any code or configuration held in volatile storage is lost between interrogations. Greene et al. at [0074] requires each marker to retain a distinct assigned bit code across an indefinite implantation period, which a volatile store cannot do. Hamel et al. teaches at [0055] the use of non-volatile memory in exactly this setting, namely a node whose supply is intermittent because it operates on harvested energy. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamel et al. at [0055] integrates the non-volatile memory with the microcontroller in a module powered entirely from harvested energy.
Regarding Claim 19, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Park et al. (‘995) and further in view of Hamel et al. (‘662) teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 14:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not explicitly teach, but Hamel et al. (‘662) teaches: wherein the energy source comprises an inertial structure for motion-induced charging. ([0047]: “PZT 20 is mounted to cantilever 22 which can be tuned with variable mass 24, as shown in FIGS. 1b and 1c, to provide a device resonance frequency close to the vibration frequency of machine or structure, thereby optimizing energy harvesting”; [0050]: “Electrical power generated in PZT 20 is rectified in rectifier 40, stored in electrical storage device 42, and once sufficient energy has been stored, is provided to a load, such as wireless sensing module 44, by means of controller 46”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the energy source of the marker of Greene et al. with an inertial structure for motion-induced charging as taught by Hamel et al. One would have been motivated to do so because the marker of Greene et al. can act only while the probe is delivering energy to it. Hamel et al. teaches at [0047] and [0050] that a node attached to a body subject to motion can accumulate charge from that motion independently of any external supply. In the tongue-borne application arising from the combination with Ghovanloo et al., the marker is carried on a continuously moving articulator, so the ambient mechanical energy that Hamel et al. exploits is present throughout use. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hamel et al. at [0051] reports upwards of twenty volts accumulated across the storage capacitor from a deflection of approximately 0.08 inch at a 50 Hz rate, which substantially exceeds the approximately half a volt that Greene et al. at [0060] requires to operate the switch. Hamel et al. at [0056] further states that the transducer may be mounted on a live subject.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greene et al. (US 2021/0068705 A1) in view of Reindl et al., Design, Fabrication, and Application of Precise SAW Delay Lines Used in an FMCW Radar System, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 787-794 (April 2001).
Regarding Claim 22, Greene et al. (‘705) in view of Reindl et al. teaches the active radar marker according to Claim 13:
Greene et al. (‘705) does not teach that the reflector structure comprises a delay line for the electromagnetic waves. Greene et al. teaches at [0100] that the round-trip path to and from the marker introduces a propagation delay that is measured to determine range. It teaches no delay-line structure forming part of the marker’s reflector structure.
However, Reindl et al. teaches: wherein the reflector structure comprises a delay line for the electromagnetic waves. (pg. 791, right column, continuing to pg. 792: “for the 3-D position tracker, SAW devices are incorporated not only by the radar basestations, but also by the active backscatter transponder. The SAW used in this particular transponder is a special combination of resonator and delay line. This makes the sensor system completely self-calibrating and achieves more positioning precision in the submillimeter range”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a delay line into the reflector structure of the marker of Greene et al. as taught by Reindl et al. One would have been motivated to do so because Greene et al. concedes at [0121] that the return from the marker is far weaker than the reflection at the antenna-tissue interface, so that the composite phase of the received signal is dominated by the interface reflection. Reindl et al. teaches that a delay line borne by the transponder imposes a known fixed delay, which corresponds to a fixed apparent radar distance and renders the position measurement self-calibrating with submillimeter precision. Incorporating such a delay line into the marker of Greene et al. would separate the marker return from the interface reflection in the delay domain in addition to the existing separation in the modulation domain. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Reindl et al. reports its delay lines operating at 2.45 GHz, and Greene et al. teaches at [0106] a narrow-band interrogation centred at about 2.5 GHz, so the operating frequencies coincide without redesign. Examiner’s note for the file. The transponder teaching relied upon appears in Reindl et al.’s discussion of the work reported in its reference [43], namely Vossiek, Roskosch, and Heide. Reindl et al.’s own description of that arrangement is a sufficient disclosure to rely upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
