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. EP 22211704.6, filed on 12/06/2022 and Application No. EP 22212192.3, filed on 12/08/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/19/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
FIGS. 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d: Although the specification states “In FIG. 2a, the movable magnets 121 and the restoring magnets 123 are aligned in parallel, respectively, as their magnetic dipole moments are oriented in the same direction” [Page 12, Lines 11-13] and “FIG. 2b, 2c, and 2d depict other relative orientations of fixed restoring magnets 123 and oscillating movable magnets 123 together with the effect on the system resonance frequency f compared wo the resonance frequency f0” [Page 12, Lines 19-21], these figures do not include labels 121 and 123.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[Page 1, Lines 20-22]: As written it reads “The inventors of the present invention have thus found that it would be advantageous to have a device which provides magneto-mechanical resonators with an improved signal-to-noise ratio while keeping the size of the device small”. However, this sentence does not end with a period “.”.
[Page 9, Lines 15-17]: As written it reads :By variation of size, position and orientation of the magnet, a useful measure like, for example, the RMS movable magnet deviation from its ideal rest position can be minimized”. However, this is the first indication of the term “RMS” therefore, the term should be spelled out to provide clarity.
[Page 9, Lines 32-33]: As written it reads “According to another aspect of the invention, better SNR allows reduce the side of the MMRs and/or achieve a larger detection distance”. However, to be grammatically correct “allows reduce the side of the MMRs” should be “allows for a reduction of the side of the MMRs”.
[Page 12, Lines 19-21]: As written it reads “FIG. 2b, 2c, and 2d depict other relative orientations of fixed restoring magnets 123 and oscillating movable magnets 123 together with the effect on the system resonance frequency f compared wo the resonance frequency f0”. However, the examiner believes “oscillating movable magnets 123” should be “oscillating movable magnets 121”.
[Page 13, Lines 34]: As written it reads “via secondary communication paths, e.g., WLAN, Bluetooth or similar means”. However, this is the first indication of the term “WLAN”, therefore, the term should be spelled out to provide clarity.
[Page 14, Lines 16-18]: As written it reads “VM roles are instantiated according to tenant defined configurations (e.g., resources guest operating system). Operating system and VM updates are managed by the cloud. A web role and a worker role run in a VM role, which is a virtual machine under the control of the tenant. Storage and SQL services are available to be used by the roles”. However, this is the first instance of the terms “VM” and “SQL”, therefore, the terms should be spelled out to provide clarity.
[Page 15, Lines 15-17]: As written it reads “The memory may include any one or a combination of volatile memory elements (e.g., random-access memory RAM, such as DRAM, and SRAM, etc.) and nonvolatile memory elements (e.g., ROM, Flash, solid state, EPROM, EEPROM, hard drive, tape, CDROM, etc.)”. However, this is the first indication of the terms “DRAM”, “SRAM”, “ROM”, “EPROM”, “EEPROM” and “CDROM”, therefore, the terms should be spelled out to provide clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, as written it reads “wherein the device comprises a termination magnet attached to the housing and configured for correcting edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators, and/or wherein at least one of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators”. However, to correct the typo the second instance of “of the” should be deleted.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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: the restoring unit in claims 1 and 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. That being said, the restoring unit is described in the specification when it states “At least one of the magneto-mechanical resonators comprises at least one movable magnet mounted to the housing and configured to rotate around a rotational axis, and a restoring unit configured for exerting a restoring force on the at least one movable magnet when the movable magnet is deflected from a rest position of the movable magnet with respect to the rotational axis” [Page 2, Lines 14-17]; “In an embodiment of the invention, the restoring unit configured for exerting the restoring force is a restoring magnet. Thus, the restoring magnet exerts a magnetic field at the position of the movable magnet such that the movable magnet experiences a force due to its magnetic dipole moment that rotates the movable magnet into the rest position where the magnetic dipole moment is oriented in the direction of the magnetic field of the restoring magnet” [Page 3, Lines 15-19].
Therefore, the restoring unit is a restoring magnet configured to exert a magnetic field/restoring force on the movable magnet when it is deflected from a rest position with respect to the rotational axis. In this case, there is sufficient structure for the restoring unit. Thus, claims 1 and 2 are not subject to further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 with respect to the restoring unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, as written it reads “Use of an arrangement according to claim 12 for determining a position and/or an orientation of a probe comprising a device inserted into a subject”. However, this claim attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process, specifically without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). Therefore, it is unclear how this use is actually performed. The examiner recommends clarifying the steps used to carry out this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a “Use of an arrangement according to claim 12 for determining a position and/or an orientation of a probe comprising a device inserted into a subject”. In this case, the claim does not define active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually performed. Therefore, the claim does not recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and thus does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gleich et al. US 2020/0397510 A1 “Gleich”.
Regarding claim 1, Gleich teaches “A passive medical sensing device for at least one of sensing or position tracking, the device comprising:” (“According to a first aspect of the invention, a tracking system for tracking a marker device is provided, the marker device being attached to a medical device and the tracking system being for use in surgery. The marker device comprises a sensing unit comprising a magnetic object providing a permanent magnetic moment, wherein the sensing unit is configured to transduce an external magnetic or electromagnetic excitation field into a mechanical oscillation of the magnetic object” [0007]; “Also in FIG. 10 the marker device 3001 comprises a casing 3002 and a magnetic object 3004 being arranged within the casing 3002 such that it is rotatable out of an equilibrium orientation if an external magnetic torque is acting on the magnetic object 3004. The marker device 3001 further comprises a restoring torque unit 3003 being adapted to provide a restoring torque to force the magnetic object 3004 back into the equilibrium orientation if an external magnetic or electromagnetic field has rotated the magnetic object 3004 out of the equilibrium orientation, in order to allow for a rotational oscillation of the magnetic object 3004 excited by the external magnetic or electromagnetic field resulting in a respective magnetic torque. In this embodiment the casing 3002 is cylindrical and the magnetic object 3004 is rotatable around a virtual rotational axis centrally traversing the magnetic object 3004, wherein the magnetic object 3004 is rotationally symmetric with respect to the virtual rotational axis. In particular, in this embodiment the magnetic object 3004 is a magnetic sphere” [0119].
Therefore, Gleich discloses a passive medical sensing device (i.e. marker device/marker device 3001) for at least one of sensing or position tracking.);
“a housing” (See casing 3002 in FIG. 10/[0119]; and “According to a further aspect, a marker device is provided which allows to determine the position and/or orientation of a medical device to which the marker device may be attached. The marker device may comprise a casing and a sensing unit” [0049]. Therefore, since the marker device may comprise a casing, the passive medical sensing device comprises a housing (i.e. casing).), and
“a plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators arranged in the housing” (See magnetic object 3004 in FIG. 10/[0119]; and “According to some embodiments, the tracking system may be adapted to determine the position of a plurality of marker devices, each of the plurality of marker devices comprising a respective sensing unit. The magnetic objects of the respective sensing unit may be oscillatable, in particular rotationally oscillatable, with different resonance frequencies such as to generate a different magnetic or electromagnetic field to be transduced in respective one or more electrical response signals specific to the respective marker device” [0021]; “The sensing unit comprising the magnetic object may particularly comprise or be provided inside the casing. Specifically, the magnetic object may be arranged within the casing. Hereby, the magnetic object may particularly be arranged within the casing such that it may be rotatable out of an equilibrium orientation by an external magnetic torque acting on the magnetic object. The external magnetic torque may be a result of the external magnetic or electromagnetic field acting on the magnetic object. That is, in some embodiments, the magnetic object is rotated out of its equilibrium position by the external magnetic or electromagnetic field” [0050].
Therefore, since the tracking system may be adapted to determine a position of a plurality of marker devices, each of the plurality of marker devices comprising a respective sensing unit with magnetic objects which are oscillatable (i.e. magneto-mechanical resonators) and the sensing unit is provided within the casing (i.e. of the marker device, see [0049], [0050]), the passive medical sensing device comprises a plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. magnetic objects) arranged in the housing (i.e. casing).);
“wherein at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is magnetically coupled to at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators” (“The restoring torque unit 3003 comprises a further magnetic object 3003 for providing the restoring torque. In particular, the magnetic object 3004 is attached to one end of an attachment portion, such as a filament, 3007, wherein another end of the attachment portion 3007 is attached to the casing 3002. The attachment portion 3007 is adapted to prevent the magnetic object 3004 from touching the further magnetic object 3003 due to their magnetic attraction and to allow the magnetic object 3004 to rotationally oscillate” [0120]. Therefore, since the casing 3002 (i.e. housing) contains magnetic objects 3003 (i.e. within restoring torque unit 3003) and 3004 (i.e. magneto-mechanical resonator) which are magnetically attracted to each other, at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. magnetic objects 3003/3004) is magnetically coupled to at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators.), and
“wherein at least one of the magneto-mechanical resonators comprises: at least one movable magnet mounted to the housing and configured to rotate around a rotational axis” (See [0050] and magnetic object 3004 in FIG. 10/[0119] above. Therefore, since the magnetic object is rotated out of its equilibrium position by the external magnetic or electromagnetic field, the at least one of the magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. within sensing unit) comprises at least one movable magnet (i.e. magnetic object) to the housing (i.e. casing, see [0049], [0050]) and configured to rotate around a rotational axis.), and
“a restoring unit configured for exerting a restoring force on the at least one movable magnet when the movable magnet is deflected from a rest position of the movable magnet with respect to the rotational axis” (See restoring torque unit 3003 in FIG. 10/[0119] and “The sensing unit may further comprise a restoring torque unit for providing a restoring torque to force the magnetic object back to the equilibrium orientation if the external magnetic or electromagnetic field has rotated the magnetic object out of the equilibrium orientation. This results in a rotational oscillation of the magnetic object excited by the external magnetic torque from the external magnetic or electromagnetic field” [0051]. Therefore, at least one of the magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a restoring unit (i.e. restoring torque unit) for exerting a restoring force on the at least one movable magnet when the movable magnet (i.e. magnetic object) is deflected from a rest position (i.e. equilibrium orientation) of the movable magnet with respect to the rotational axis.).
Regarding claim 2, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein the restoring unit is a restoring magnet” (See [0120] as discussed in claim 1 above. Therefore, since the restoring torque unit 3003 comprises a further magnetic object 3003 (i.e. magnet) for providing the restoring torque, the restoring unit is a restoring magnet.);
Regarding claim 3, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein the restoring magnet is fixed to the housing such that no rotational movement of the restoring magnet is allowed” (“The further magnetic object is preferentially stationarily respectively fixedly attached to the casing” [0055]; “In this embodiment the further magnetic object 3003 is fixedly attached to the casing 3002 by using glue 3009” [0120]. Therefore, since the further magnetic object 3003 (i.e. within the restoring torque unit 3003) is stationarily/fixedly attached to the casing (i.e. housing), the restoring magnet (i.e. further magnetic object 3003) is fixed to the housing (i.e. casing) such that no rotational movement of the restoring magnet is allowed.).
Regarding claim 4, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein a magnetic moment of each of the restoring magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged in parallel with a magnetic moment of a restoring magnet of a respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator” and “wherein a magnetic moment of each of the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged in parallel with a magnetic moment of a movable magnet of the respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator when the movable magnets are in their respective rest position” (See [0021] as discussed in claim 1 above and FIG. 10. In this case, when multiple marker devices 3001 are arranged side-by-side, the magnetic moment of each of the restoring magnets (i.e. 3003) of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged in parallel (i.e. arrows corresponding to magnetic moment are in the same direction) with a magnetic moment of a restoring magnet (i.e. 3003 of a respecting neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator. Likewise, when multiple marker devices 3001 are arranged side-by-side, a magnetic moment of each of the movable magnets (i.e. 3004 in FIG. 10) of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged in parallel (i.e. arrows corresponding to magnetic moment are in the same direction) with a magnetic moment of a movable magnet (i.e. 3004) of the respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator when the movable magnets are in their respective rest position (i.e. equilibrium position, in which an external magnetic or electromagnetic field is not applied).
Regarding claim 5, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 2 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein a magnetic moment of each of the restoring magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged antiparallel to a magnetic moment of a restoring magnet of a respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator” and “wherein a magnetic moment of each of the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged antiparallel to a magnetic moment of a movable magnet of the respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator when the movable magnets are in their respective rest position” (See [0021] as discussed in claim 1 above, and FIG. 10 where the magnet object 3004 is anti-parallel to the magnetic object 3003, and “The magnetic object 508 is suspended from an attachment portion 506, such as a filament, and is thus free to perform a rotational motion about the main axis of the sensing unit. In this embodiment, the further magnetic object 507 is fixed” [0084]; “In equilibrium, the magnetic objects 507, 508, respectively, align with anti-parallel orientation of their magnetization” [0085].
In the case of FIG. 3, the magnetic object 507 represents the restoring magnet and the magnetic object 508 represents the neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator. When multiple marker devices are not arranged side-by-side and, for example, are positioned across from each other (i.e. magnetic materials 3006 in respective marker devices are aligned/next to each other), the magnetic moments of the restoring magnets (i.e. 3003 in FIG. 10) and the magnetic objects (i.e. 3004 in FIG. 10) are anti-parallel to each other. Therefore, when multiple marker devices are not arranged side-by-side (i.e. are positioned across from each other) and since multiple marker devices (i.e. each with its own respective sensing unit which contains a magnetic object (i.e. such as 3004 in FIG. 10) and a restoring torque unit (i.e. 3003 in FIG. 10)) may be tracked by the tracking system, each with a different resonance frequency so as to generate a different magnetic field or electromagnetic field, a magnetic moment of each of the restoring magnets (i.e. 3003) of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e.in the multiple marker devices) is arranged antiparallel to a magnetic moment of a restoring magnet of a respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator. Likewise, when multiple marker devices are not arranged side-by-side, a magnetic moment of each of the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged antiparallel to a magnetic moment of a movable magnet of the respective neighboring magneto-mechanical resonator when the movable magnets are in their respective rest position.).
Regarding claim 6, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein the movable magnet is located on the rotational axis, and/or wherein the rotational axis is perpendicular to a magnetic dipole moment of the movable magnet” (“The attachment portion 3007 is adapted to prevent the magnetic object 3004 from touching the further magnetic object 3003 due to their magnetic attraction and to allow the magnetic object 3004 to rotationally oscillate” [0120]. As shown in FIG. 10, the attachment portion 3007 is perpendicular to the magnetic dipole moment of the movable magnet (i.e. magnetic object 3004). Therefore, since the magnetic object 3004 rotationally oscillates due to the connection between the attachment portion 3007 and the magnetic object 3004, the movable magnet (i.e. 3004) is located on the rotational axis, and/or wherein the rotational axis is perpendicular to a magnetic dipole moment (i.e. see arrow within magnetic object 3004 in FIG. 10) of the movable magnet.).
Regarding claim 9, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein a length of the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators in the direction of the rotational axis is larger than a length of the movable magnets perpendicular to the rotational axis, and/or wherein each of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a collector of a soft magnetic material arranged adjacent to the movable magnet and configured for focusing a magnetic field applied to or emitted from the movable magnet” (“The marker device 3001 further comprises magnetic material 3005, 3006 arranged adjacent to the further magnetic object 3003. This magnetic material 3005, 3006 influences the magnetic field generated by the further magnetic object 3003, wherein the influence of the magnetic material 3005, 3006 depends on the temperature in order to change the strength of the magnetic field at the position of the magnetic object 3004 and hence in order to change the resonance frequency if the temperature changes. […] The magnetic materials 3005, 3006, which are soft magnetic materials, therefore influence the resonance frequency depending on the temperature in opposite frequency directions, i.e. one of these magnetic materials leads to a change towards higher frequencies depending on an increasing temperature and the other of these magnetic materials leads to a change towards lower frequencies with increasing temperature” [0124].
As shown in FIG. 10, the magnetic object 3004 is located adjacent to the further magnetic object 3003 which in itself is adjacent to the magnetic material 3005, 3006 (i.e. soft magnetic materials). Therefore, each of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. within the plurality of marker devices 3001, see [0021] and FIG. 10) comprises a collector of a soft magnetic material (i.e. magnetic material 3005, 3006) arranged adjacent to the movable magnet (i.e. since the magnetic object 3004 (i.e. movable magnet) is adjacent to the magnetic object 3003) and configured for focusing a magnetic field (i.e. influences magnetic field) applied to or emitted from the movable magnet (i.e. 3004).).
Regarding claim 10, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged in a one-dimensional, a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional grid” (See [0021] as discussed in claim 1 above and FIG. 10. As shown in FIG. 10, the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. 3003 and 3004) are arranged adjacent to each other (i.e. in a one-dimensional grid). Since the tracking system may determine the position of a plurality of marker devices (i.e. arranged side-by-side or across from each other, for example) and each of the plurality of marker devices comprises a respective sensing unit (i.e. containing 3003 and 3004 as shown in FIG. 10), the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators is arranged in a one-dimensional, a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional grid.).
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.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleich et al. US 2020/0397510 A1 “Gleich” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida US 5,008,624 A “Yoshida”
Regarding claim 11, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, however, Gleich does not teach “wherein the device comprises a termination magnet attached to the housing and configured for correcting edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators, and/or wherein at least one of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators”.
Yoshida is within a related field of endeavor to the claimed invention because it involves nuclear magnetic resonance imaging apparatus (see FIG. 1) and corrects edge effects (see [Column 5, Lines 17-35]).
Yoshida teaches “wherein the device comprises a termination magnet attached to the housing and configured for correcting edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators, and/or wherein at least one of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators” (“Now, the uniformity of the static magnetic field B can be improved by making a cross sectional area of each superconductive body 50/51 sufficiently smaller compared with that of the superconductive block 1. However, when two superconductor blocks 1 are arranged in parallel, facing each other, as in the case for the construction of the main magnet 20 just described, an extent of uniformity achievable is limited by an appearance of the edge effects, as shown in FIG. 9. Namely, the magnetic field near the edge portion of the superconductor block 1 tends to deviate. For this reason, it is preferable to equip each superconductor block 1 with a mechanism for finely adjusting positions along the axis of individual superconductive body 50/51, such that the deviation due to the edge effect can be corrected, as shown in FIG. 10, by bringing those superconductive bodies 50/51 near the edges of each of the superconductor blocks 1 closer to each other than other superconductive bodies 50/51” [Column 5, Lines 17-35].
Therefore, since it is preferable to equip each superconductor block 1 with a mechanism for finely adjusting positions along the axis of individual superconductive body 50/51, such that the deviation due to the edge effect can be corrected as shown in FIG. 10 (i.e. through making the superconductive bodies 50/51 curved), at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators.).
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 device of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida in order to effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]). Equipping each superconductor block 1 with a mechanism for finely adjusting positions along the axis of individual superconductive body 50/51, such that the deviation due to the edge effect can be corrected as shown in FIG. 10 (i.e. through making the superconductive bodies 50/51 curved), see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35], FIG. 10). Thus, modifying the device of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed would yield the predictable result of correcting for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida in order to effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]).
Regarding claim 12, Gleich teaches “An arrangement comprising” (“FIG. 11 schematically and exemplarily illustrates a tracking system 1501 for tracking a marker device as previously described, i.e. a tracking system for wirelessly determining the position and/or orientation of the marker device—attached to a medical device—based on one or more electrical response signals which are indicative of the response frequency of the oscillation of the magnetic object in the sensing unit” [0126]. Therefore, the tracking system 1501 represents an arrangement.);
“a probe, the probe comprising a device […]” (“To that end, FIG. 4 shows at least one marker device 501 that is attached to an ultrasound probe 610 to track the position of said ultrasound probe 610 during an ultrasound measurement on a patient 100” [0108]. Therefore, since the tracking system 1501 is used for tracking the marker device (i.e. 501) which is attached to ultrasound probe 610, the arrangement includes a probe, the probe comprising a device (i.e. marker device 501 with magnetic objects 507, 508).);
“an emitter, configured for emitting a pulse of an electro-magnetic radiation for deflecting the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators of the device out of the rest position of the movable magnets and for exciting an oscillating movement of the movable magnets with a resonance frequency f of the device”; “a receiver, configured for receiving an electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f” (“In FIG. 11 the tracking system 1501 comprises a transmit coil 1503 which is connected to a microcontroller 1507 via a digital-to-analog converter 1506 (DAC) and an audio amplifier 1502 for generating the external magnetic or electromagnetic excitation field for the marker device 1520 which can be embodied as described before. A receive coil 1504 is also connected to the microcontroller 1507 via a low noise amplifier 1505 and an analog-to-digital converter 1508 (ADC) for reading out the resonance frequency. The microcontroller 1507 is connected to a display computer 1509. The microcontroller 1507 is configured for, for instance, signal generation and reception, frequency evaluation and control. In FIG. 12 also a transmit/receive decoupler is shown” [0128]; “The sensing unit 501 thus contains two magnetic objects 507, 508, wherein, in equilibrium, the magnetic objects 507, 508 align with anti-parallel magnetization. An external field pulse provided by a respective field generator can be used to start a rotational oscillation of the suspended magnetic object 508—which, in the embodiment of FIG. 1 corresponds to a magnetic sphere—about the main axis of the sensing unit, wherein the other magnetic object 507—also embodiment as a magnetic sphere in this particular embodiment—is fixed. If in another embodiment also the other magnetic object 507 is suspended in free space and can perform a rotational oscillation, both magnetic objects 507, 508 can perform a resonance counter-oscillation” [0090].
Therefore, the arrangement includes an emitter (i.e. transmit coil 1503), configured for emitting a pulse of an electro-magnetic radiation for deflecting the movable magnets (i.e. magnetic object 508, see [0090], 3004 in FIG. 10) of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. see [0021]) of the device (i.e. 3001, see FIG. 10) out of the rest position of the movable magnets and for exciting an oscillating movement of the movable magnets (i.e. 3004 in FIG. 10, 508 in FIG. 4) with a resonance frequency f of the device. Furthermore, the arrangement includes a receiver (i.e. receive coil 1504), configured for receiving an electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets (i.e. 508 in FIG. 4, 3004 in FIG. 10) of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f.); and
“a controller, configured for determining a position and/or an orientation of the device based on the received electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f” (See microcontroller 1507 as discussed in [0128]. Therefore, since the tracking system (i.e. 1501) is used for tracking a marker device (i.e. see [0126]) (i.e. 3001, in FIG. 10, for example) and it includes a microcontroller 1507 which is configured for signal generation and reception, frequency evaluation and control, the arrangement includes a controller, configured for determining a position and/or an orientation of the device (i.e. marker device 501 in FIG. 4, 3001 in FIG. 10) based on the received electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets (i.e. magnetic object 508, 3004) of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f.).
Gleich does not teach that the device is “according claim 11”.
Yoshida teaches the device is “according claim 11” (See [Column 15, Lines 17-35] as discussed in claim 11 above.).
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 arrangement of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida in order to effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]). Equipping each superconductor block 1 with a mechanism for finely adjusting positions along the axis of individual superconductive body 50/51, such that the deviation due to the edge effect can be corrected as shown in FIG. 10 (i.e. through making the superconductive bodies 50/51 curved), see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35], FIG. 10). Thus, modifying the arrangement of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida would yield the predictable result of effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]).
Regarding claim 13, Gleich in view of Yoshida discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “Use of an arrangement according to claim 12 for determining a position and/or an orientation of a probe comprising a device inserted into a subject” (See [0108] as discussed in claim 12 above and FIG. 4. As shown in FIG. 4, the ultrasound probe 610 is inserted into a patient. Therefore, Gleich teaches the use of an arrangement according to claim 12 for determining a position and/or an orientation of a probe (i.e. ultrasound probe 610) comprising a device inserted into a subject.).
Regarding claim 14, Gleich teaches “Method of sensing or tracking of a position of a probe comprising a passive medical sensing device, the method comprising the steps of:” (“According to another aspect, a tracking method for tracking a marker device as previously described is provided, the marker device being attached to a medical device as described herein above using a tracking system as described. The tracking system may particularly be used during surgery. The tracking method comprises generating a magnetic or electromagnetic excitation field for inducing mechanical oscillations of the magnetic object of the sensing unit, transducing a magnetic or electromagnetic field generated by the induced mechanical oscillations of the magnetic object of the sensing unit into one or more electrical response signals, determining a position of the marker device on the basis of the one or more electrical response signals” [0062]. Therefore, Gleich discloses a method of sensing or tracking of a position of a probe comprising a passive medical sensing device (i.e. 3001 in FIG. 10).);
“providing a probe comprising the passive medical sensing device […]” (“To that end, FIG. 4 shows at least one marker device 501 that is attached to an ultrasound probe 610 to track the position of said ultrasound probe 610 during an ultrasound measurement on a patient 100” [0108]. Therefore, since the tracking system 1501 is used for tracking the marker device (i.e. 501) which is attached to ultrasound probe 610, the method involves providing a probe comprising the passive medical sensing device (i.e. 3001);
“emitting a pulse of an electro-magnetic radiation for deflecting the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators of the device out of the rest position of the movable magnets and for exciting an oscillating movement of the movable magnets with a resonance frequency f of the device”; “receiving an electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto- mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f” (See [0128] and [0090] as discussed in claim 12 above. Therefore, the method comprises emitting a pulse of an electro-magnetic radiation (i.e. via transmit coil 1503) for deflecting the movable magnets of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators of the device out of the rest position of the movable magnets and for exciting an oscillating movement of the movable magnets with a resonance frequency f of the device; and receiving an electro-magnetic field (i.e. via receiver coil 1504) emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto- mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f.); and
“determining a position and/or an orientation of the device based on the received electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f” (See [0126] and [0128] as discussed in claim 12 above. Therefore, since the tracking system (i.e. 1501) is used for tracking a marker device (i.e. 3001, in FIG. 10, for example, see [0126]) and it includes a microcontroller 1507 which is configured for signal generation and reception, frequency evaluation and control (see [0128]), the arrangement includes a controller, configured for determining a position and/or an orientation of the device (i.e. marker device 501 in FIG. 4, 3001 in FIG. 10) based on the received electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets (i.e. magnetic object 508, 3004) of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f.).
Gleich does not teach the passive medical sensing device “according to claim 11”.
Yoshida teaches the passive medical sensing device “according to claim 11” (See [Column 15, Lines 17-35] as discussed in claim 11 above.).
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 method of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida in order to effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]). Equipping each superconductor block 1 with a mechanism for finely adjusting positions along the axis of individual superconductive body 50/51, such that the deviation due to the edge effect can be corrected as shown in FIG. 10 (i.e. through making the superconductive bodies 50/51 curved), see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35], FIG. 10). Thus, modifying the method of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida would yield the predictable result of effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]).
Regarding claim 15, Gleich teaches “A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out the steps of:” (“In yet another aspect, a computer program comprising program code means for causing a tracking system as previously specified to carry out the steps of the above-mentioned tracking method, when the computer program is run on a computer controlling the tracking system” [0062]. Therefore, Gleich discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to carry out specific steps.);
“controlling an emitter to emit a pulse of an electro-magnetic radiation for deflecting movable magnets of a plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators of a passive medical sensing device […] out of the rest position of the movable magnets and for exciting an oscillating movement of the movable magnets with a resonance frequency f of the device”; “controlling a receiver to receive an electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f” (See [0128] and [0090] as discussed in claim 12 above. Therefore, the computer program causes the computing device to carry out the steps of: controlling an emitter to emit a pulse of an electro-magnetic radiation (i.e. via transmit coil 1503) for deflecting movable magnets of a plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators of a passive medical sensing device out of the rest position of the movable magnets and for exciting an oscillating movement of the movable magnets with a resonance frequency f of the device and controlling a receiver to receive an electro-magnetic field (i.e. via the receive coil 1504) emitted by the movable magnets (i.e. 508 in FIG. 4, 3004 in FIG. 10) of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f.); and
“determining a position and/or an orientation of the device based on the received electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f” (See [0126] and [0128] as discussed in claim 12 above. Therefore, since the tracking system (i.e. 1501) is used for tracking a marker device (i.e. 3001, in FIG. 10, for example, see [0126]) and it includes a microcontroller 1507 which is configured for signal generation and reception, frequency evaluation and control (see [0128]), the computing device is configured to carry out determining a position and/or an orientation of the device (i.e. marker device 501 in FIG. 4, 3001 in FIG. 10) based on the received electro-magnetic field emitted by the movable magnets (i.e. magnetic object 508, 3004) of the magneto-mechanical resonators of the device oscillating with the resonance frequency f.).
Gleich does not teach the passive medical sensing device “according to claim 11”.
Yoshida teaches the passive medical sensing device “according to claim 11” (See [Column 15, Lines 17-35] as discussed in claim 11 above.).
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 computer program of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida in order to effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]). Equipping each superconductor block 1 with a mechanism for finely adjusting positions along the axis of individual superconductive body 50/51, such that the deviation due to the edge effect can be corrected as shown in FIG. 10 (i.e. through making the superconductive bodies 50/51 curved), see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35], FIG. 10). Thus, modifying the computer program of Gleib such that at least one of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators that is arranged at a border area of the of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators comprises a movable magnet that is spatially fixed in order to correct for edge effects of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators as disclosed in Yoshida would yield the predictable result of effectively correct deviation due to edge effects (see Yoshida: [Column 5, Lines 17-35]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, Gleich discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Gleich further teaches “wherein each of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators, when the movable magnet oscillates around the rest position, is configured to effect a change of the magnetic field at the position of the movable magnet of the at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators in a direction perpendicular to both the rotational axis and the magnetic dipole moment of the movable magnet of the at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators” (See [0021], [0119], and [0120] as disclosed in claim 1 above. Therefore, each of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators (i.e. within the plurality of marker devices 3001), when the movable magnet (i.e. magnetic object 3004) oscillates around the rest position, is configured to effect a change in the magnetic field at the position of the movable magnet of the at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators in a direction perpendicular to both the rotational axis and the magnetic dipole moment of the movable magnet of the at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators […] this thus magnetically coupling the magneto-mechanical resonator with the at least another of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators.).
However, Gleich does not teach that the that change of the magnetic field is “larger than 1 µT preferably larger than 10 µT, more preferably larger than 100 µT”. Additionally, the examiner acknowledges that Yoshida does not cure the deficiencies of Gleich.
Furthermore, during the examiner’s search, no prior art references were found to teach the above limitations both alone or in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7.
Thus, claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the examiner acknowledges that Gleich and Yoshida, both alone and in combination do not teach “wherein there are two frequencies: f of the device and resonance frequency fo of the at least one of the plurality of the plurality of the magneto- mechanical resonators, and a resonance frequency f of the device differs from the resonance frequency fo of the plurality of magneto-mechanical resonators”.
Furthermore, during the examiner’s search, no prior art references were found to teach the above limitations both alone or in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 7.
Thus, claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gleich et al. US 2020/0397530 A1 “Gleich” is pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure because it discloses “FIG. 1 shows schematically and exemplarily an embodiment of a marker device to be tracked by using a tracking system. The marker device 1 comprises a casing 2 and a magnetic object 3 being arranged within the casing 2 such that it is rotatable out of an equilibrium orientation if an external magnetic torque is acting on the magnetic object 3” [0046].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.- Fri. 7:30-4:30 (Alternate Fridays Off).
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights