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
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed on 9/26/25. Claims 1, 17, and 19 amended. Claim 20 canceled. Claim 21 newly added. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s)1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Vogtmeier et al. US Publication No. 2022/0226069 cited by applicant in view of Hunter 20010011175
Re Claim 1, Vogtmeier discloses a multimodal apparatus (Fig. 4), comprising:
a main body (QR code is the main body; Figs. 4) formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial purpose (P106) and an optical tracked fiducial purpose with respect to an object to be tracked (P132).
Vogtmeier fails to disclose wherein the multimodal apparatus facilitates at least one of switching between the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose based on a tracking condition, and simultaneously tracking via the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose to validate tracking accuracy
However Hunter discloses , hybrid tracking systems, which simultaneously use an optical system and an electromagnetic system, where the latter is used for monitoring the position and spatial orientation of the instruments when these are not visible to the main unit of the optical tracking system ( P20, P27, P41-48).
Given the teachings of Hunter it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hunter with wherein the multimodal apparatus facilitates at least one of switching between the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose based on a tracking condition, and simultaneously tracking via the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose to validate tracking accuracy.
Doing so would increase accuracy and flexibility for users by utilizing the features of multiple navigation system to their respective advantages. In addition, utilizing multiple navigation systems often increases the overall working volume during the procedure (P49).
Re Claim 2, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 1, and Vogtmeier discloses wherein the optical tracked fiducial purpose includes at least one of: the ferromagnetic material having a QR code pattern that provides both visual identification and electromagnetic tracking capabilities (P106, P132); the ferromagnetic material has a reflective outer surface that enables both camera tracking and electromagnetic field detection (P132);
the ferromagnetic material having a surface relief pattern with a depth dimension that creates both an optically scannable identifier and a unique electromagnetic signature;
and the ferromagnetic material being distributed in a non-repeating pattern that provides both visual reference points for optical tracking and electromagnetic tracking capabilities.
Re Claim 4, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2, and Hunter discloses wherein the QR code pattern is one of a two-dimensional QR code pattern or a three-dimensional QR code pattern (P132).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogtmeier et al. US Publication No. 2022/0226069 cited in previous application in view of Hunter 20010011175 as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Srimohanarajah et al. US Publication No. 20180071029 A1 cited in previous application .
Re Claim 3, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the QR code pattern is formed as a relief in an outer surface of the main body.
However, Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the QR code pattern is formed as a relief in an outer surface of the main body (Fig. 13; P120).
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the QR code pattern is formed as a relief in an outer surface of the main body.
Doing so would allow the QR code to be viewed through an additional modality of 3-D scanning.
Re Claim 5, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the reflective outer surface is formed by at least one of a reflective surface treatment and a reflective coating.
However, Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the reflective outer surface is formed by at least one of a reflective surface treatment and a reflective coating (P109).
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the reflective outer surface is formed by at least one of a reflective surface treatment and a reflective coating.
Doing so would ensure the interior of the spere of the markers remains the ferromagnetic material after being coated with a reflective coating.
Re Claim 8, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2.
Vogtmeier and Hunter fails to disclose wherein the main body includes a tracking frame and a plurality of reflective spheres, the reflective spheres providing the reflective outer surface.
However , Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the main body includes a tracking frame (see circular portion of 1302 equivalent to tracking frame) and a plurality of reflective spheres (1304) , the reflective spheres (1304) providing the reflective outer surface (P117, P109; Fig. 13).
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the main body includes a tracking frame and a plurality of reflective spheres, the reflective spheres providing the reflective outer surface.
Doing so would increase the accuracy in determining the orientation of the main body via the magnetic tracking
Re Claim 10, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2.
Vogtmeier and Hunter fails to disclose wherein the surface relief pattern provides both an optically scannable identifier and a unique electromagnetic signature based on a predetermined amount and arrangement of the ferromagnetic material in the three dimensions of the pattern.
Srimohanarajah disclose wherein the surface relief pattern provides both an optically scannable identifier and a unique electromagnetic signature based on a predetermined amount and arrangement of the ferromagnetic material in the three dimensions of the pattern (p109).
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the surface relief pattern provides both an optically scannable identifier and a unique electromagnetic signature based on a predetermined amount and arrangement of the ferromagnetic material in the three dimensions of the pattern.
Doing so would increase the accuracy in determining the orientation of the main body via the magnetic tracking
Re Claim 11, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2.
Vogtmeier and Hunter fails to discloses wherein the depth dimension of the surface relief pattern is configured to provide an individual electromagnetic signature unique to an area of the apparatus at which the surface relief pattern is located based on a volume and a geometry of the ferromagnetic material.
Srimohanarajah disclose wherein the depth dimension of the surface relief pattern is configured to provide an individual electromagnetic signature unique to an area of the apparatus at which the surface relief pattern is located based on a volume and a geometry of the ferromagnetic material (intended use ; Fig. 13 and P120 see different shapes of 1306s at different location in 1302 thus different volumes) .
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the depth dimension of the surface relief pattern is configured to provide an individual electromagnetic signature unique to an area of the apparatus at which the surface relief pattern is located based on a volume and a geometry of the ferromagnetic material.
Doing so would produce an individual electromagnetic signature due to the differing amount of ferromagnetic material removed to make the three dimensional indicators.
Re Claim 12, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses The multimodal apparatus of claim 2.
Vogtmeier and Hunter fails to discloses wherein the surface relief pattern has the non-repeating pattern of ferromagnetic material that enables production of a plurality of individualized electromagnetic tracking signatures within a range of material content.
Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the surface relief pattern has the non-repeating pattern of ferromagnetic material that enables production of a plurality of individualized electromagnetic tracking signatures within a range of material content (intended use; see 1306 containing the non repeating pattern, Figs. 13)
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the surface relief pattern has the non-repeating pattern of ferromagnetic material that enables production of a plurality of individualized electromagnetic tracking signatures within a range of material content.
Doing so would allow for multiple individual tracking signatures for each rigid body depending on the shapes engraved to form the rigid body
Re Claim 13, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 2.
Vogtmeier and Hunter fails to discloses wherein the surface relief pattern is formed by one of an additive process and a subtractive process on a substrate of the main body.
Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the surface relief pattern is formed by one of an additive process and a subtractive process on a substrate of the main body (P120).
Given the teachings of Srimohanarajah it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the area before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the surface relief pattern is formed by one of an additive process and a subtractive process on a substrate of the main body.
Doing so would ensure unique patterns or complex shapes that can facilitate identification and tracking identifications.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogtmeier et al. US Publication No. 2022/0226069 cited by applicant in view of
Hunter US Publication No. 20010011175 in view of Srimohanarajah et al. US Publication No. 20180071029 A1 cited in previous action as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Polaris US Publication No. 2023/0233258 cited in previous action.
Re Claim 6, Vogtmeier, Hunter and Srimohanarajah discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the reflective coating is a wavelength-specific coating.
However Polaris discloses wherein the reflective coating is a wavelength-specific coating (P65).
Given the teachings of Polaris it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier , Hunter and Srimohanarajah with wherein the reflective coating is a wavelength-specific coating.
Doing so would ensure the reflective surface coating only reflect the desired wavelength to be measured , increasing the accuracy of the tracking system.
Re Claim 7, Vogtmeier, Hunter , Srimohanarajah and Polaris discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 6, and Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the wavelength-specific coating is an IR-reflective coating adapted for detection by an infrared camera and applied to at least a portion of the ferromagnetic material to enable both optical tracking via IR reflection and electromagnetic tracking via the ferromagnetic material 1304 formed over 1302, Fig. 13, P59, and P143 ; and see Polaris P 62)
Re Claim 9, Vogtmeier, Hunter and Srimohanarajah discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 8.
Vogtmeier, Hunter and Srimohanarajah fails to disclose wherein the tracking frame includes three arms extending outwardly from a central hub, and the plurality of reflective spheres includes three reflective spheres, and each of the three reflective spheres is mounted to a different one of the three arms.
Polaris discloses wherein the tracking frame includes three arms extending outwardly from a central hub, and the plurality of reflective spheres includes three reflective spheres, and each of the three reflective spheres is mounted to a different one of the three arms (P62).
Given the teachings of Polaris it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier, Hunter and Srimohanarajah with wherein the tracking frame includes three arms extending outwardly from a central hub, and the plurality of reflective spheres includes three reflective spheres, and each of the three reflective spheres is mounted to a different one of the three arms.
Doing so would reduce material cost while maintaining the spaced relationship of each of the reflective markers.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Vogtmeier et al. US Publication No. 2022/0226069 cited in previous action in view of Hunter US Publication No. 20010011175 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Pooley et al. Us Publication No. 20200060578 cited in previous action.
Re Claims 14 and 15, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the main body is provided in the form of a ribbon tag configured to be disposed on the object body after manufacture.
Pooley discloses wherein the main body is provided in the form of a ribbon tag configured to be disposed on the object body after manufacture (P10-P11).
Pooley further discloses wherein the ribbon tag has a shape with an aspect ratio greater than 100:1 between short and long edges (P11).
Given the teachings of Pooley it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the main body is provided in the form of a ribbon tag configured to be disposed on the object body after manufacture.
Doing so as suggested by Pooley is a highly extended aspect ratio preferred to improve signal and orientation sensing performance (P11).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogtmeier et al. US Publication No. 2022/0226069 cited in pervious action in view of Hunter US Publication No. 20010011175 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Barrera et al. US Publication No. 2019/0133694 cited in previous action.
Re Claim 16, Vogtmeier and Hunter discloses the multimodal apparatus of claim 1.
Vogtmeier fails to disclose wherein the main body is co-formed with the object during manufacture.
Barrera discloses wherein the main body is co-formed with the object during manufacture (P39).
Given the teachings of Barrera it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Of Vogtmeier and Hunter with wherein the main body is co-formed with the object during manufacture.
Doing so is a strategic approach that harnesses the power of diverse manufacturing methods to optimize and streamline the production process.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srimohanarajah et al. US Publication No. 20180071029 cited in previous action in view of Pooley et al. Us Publication No. 20200060578 cited in previous action in view of Hunter US Publication No. 20010011175.
Re Claim 17, Srimohanarajah discloses a method for installation, the method comprising steps of:
providing an object to be tracked (P123);
providing a multimodal apparatus (1300; Fig. 13, P17) having a main body (Fig. 13, P117);
and placing the multimodal apparatus on the object to be tracked (P123), wherein the multimodal apparatus is configured for both a tracking of a location and orientation of the object using electromagnetic sensing of the ferromagnetic material (P117), and an identifying of the object using optical sensing of the optical tracked fiducial (P118).
Srimohanarajah fails to disclose main body formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial with respect to the object to be tracked and switching between the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial based on a tracking condition; and using the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial simultaneously to validate a tracking accuracy of the object.
Pooley disclose main body formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial with respect to the object to be tracked (Abstract, P11).
Given the teachings of Pooley it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Srimohanarajah such that the main body formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial with respect to the object to be tracked.
Doing so would ensure the location and orientation of the main body can be tracked even if the view of the camera on the reflective markers is blocked.
Srimohanarajah as modified by Pooley discloses all of the claimed limitations from above except for switching between the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial based on a tracking condition; and using the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial simultaneously to validate a tracking accuracy of the object.
Hunter discloses , hybrid tracking systems, which simultaneously use an optical system and an electromagnetic system, where the latter is used for monitoring the position and spatial orientation of the instruments when these are not visible to the main unit of the optical tracking system ( P20, P27, P41-48).
Given the teachings of Hunter it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hunter with wherein the multimodal apparatus facilitates at least one of switching between the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose based on a tracking condition, and simultaneously tracking via the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose to validate tracking accuracy.
Doing so would increase accuracy and flexibility for users by utilizing the features of multiple navigation system to their respective advantages. In addition, utilizing multiple navigation systems often increases the overall working volume during the procedure (P49).
Re Claim 18, Srimohanarajah, Pooley and Hunter discloses the method of claim 17, and Srimohanarajah discloses wherein the step of installing the multimodal apparatus on the object includes one of: a co-forming of the multimodal apparatus with the object to be tracked; and attaching the multimodal apparatus to the object with one of a mechanical fastener and an adhesive (P123).
Re Claim 19, Srimohanarajah discloses a method for tracking, the method comprising steps of: providing an object to be tracked and a multimodal apparatus (1300) having a main body (1302; Fig. 13, P117) and an optical tracked fiducial with respect to the object to be tracked (P117) ; tracking a location and an orientation of the object; and identifying the object using optical sensing of the optical tracked fiducial (P118) .
Srimohanarajah fails to discloses that the main body is formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial and tracking of a location and orientation of the object using electromagnetic sensing of the ferromagnetic material , switching between the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial based on a tracking condition; and using the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial simultaneously to validate a tracking accuracy of the object.
However Pooley discloses that the main body is formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial and tracking of a location and orientation of the object using electromagnetic sensing of the ferromagnetic material (P11).
Given the teachings of Pooley it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Srimohanarajah such that the main body is formed from a ferromagnetic material configured for use as both an electromagnetic (EM) tracked fiducial and tracking of a location and orientation of the object using electromagnetic sensing of the ferromagnetic material.
Doing so would ensure the location and orientation of the main body can be tracked even if the view of the camera on the reflective markers is blocked.
Srimohanarajah as modified by Pooley discloses all of the claimed limitations from above except for switching between the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial based on a tracking condition; and using the EM tracked fiducial and an optical tracked fiducial simultaneously to validate a tracking accuracy of the object.
Hunter discloses , hybrid tracking systems, which simultaneously use an optical system and an electromagnetic system, where the latter is used for monitoring the position and spatial orientation of the instruments when these are not visible to the main unit of the optical tracking system ( P20, P27, P41-48).
Given the teachings of Hunter it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hunter with wherein the multimodal apparatus facilitates at least one of switching between the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose based on a tracking condition, and simultaneously tracking via the EM tracked fiducial purpose and the optical tracked fiducial purpose to validate tracking accuracy.
Doing so would increase accuracy and flexibility for users by utilizing the features of multiple navigation system to their respective advantages. In addition, utilizing multiple navigation systems often increases the overall working volume during the procedure (P49).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srimohanarajah et al. US Publication No. 20180071029 cited in previous action in view of Pooley et al. Us Publication No. 20200060578 cited in previous action in view of Hunter US Publication No. 2001/0011175 as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Andreason US Publication No. 2021/0338098.
Re Claim 21, Srimohanarajah, Pooley and Hunter discloses the method of claim 19.
Srimohanarajah, Pooley and Hunter fail to disclose wherein the step of tracking the location and orientation using electromagnetic sensing includes detecting at least one of a harmonic and an intermodulation product generated when the ferromagnetic material enters at least one of an inductor-capacitor resonance and a magneto-mechanical resonance at a specific time varying (AC) frequency to induce a time dependent variation in an AC magnetic field.
Andreason discloses wherein the step of tracking the location and orientation using electromagnetic sensing includes detecting at least one of a harmonic and an intermodulation product generated when the ferromagnetic material enters at least one of an inductor-capacitor resonance and a magneto-mechanical resonance at a specific time varying (AC) frequency to induce a time dependent variation in an AC magnetic field (P111, P113).
Given the teachings of Andreason it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Srimohanarajah, Pooley and Hunter with wherein the step of tracking the location and orientation using electromagnetic sensing includes detecting at least one of a harmonic and an intermodulation product generated when the ferromagnetic material enters at least one of an inductor-capacitor resonance and a magneto-mechanical resonance at a specific time varying (AC) frequency to induce a time dependent variation in an AC magnetic field.
Doing so as suggested by Andreason can provide viable tracking (P12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 and 19 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.
Applicant amended the claims with new limitations which necessitated new search and consideration. Therefore this action is Final.
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
WO 2014106869 A1 discloses A multiple-optical-unit spatial navigation system, to be used in surgical or therapeutic or bioptic operations, guided by images of the area of the patient to be operated on, comprises, in combination: two or more optical tracking units (
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 SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876