DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 10 and 12-17 are non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12292353 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is broader than the patent, therefore, the patented claims anticipate the instant claims.
Claims 10 and 12-17 of the instant application correspond to the patented claims as follows:
Instant application
USPAT 12292353 B2
10
1
12
1
13, 14, 15, 16, 17
3, 5, 6, 7, 8 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11002533 B1 by Tongue et al. (hereinafter Tongue).
Regarding Claim 1, Tongue teaches a fiber optic shape-sensing system (Fig. 1, Abstract) comprising (Fig. 1-10):
a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 1 @ 120) helically twisted and rigidly bonded to form a linearly-running multi-fiber shape-sensing bundle (MFB) (Fig. 1 @ 120) for calculating position, bend, and twist of the shape- sensing bundle, wherein each optical fibers from among the plurality of optical fibers comprises a single core (Abstract);
an interrogator (Fig. 1 @ 110) for transmitting light to, and receiving reflected light from the shape- sensing bundle (Fig. 1 @ 120) to produce interrogation data, wherein the interrogator (Fig. 1 @ 110) is operationally coupled to the shape-sensing bundle (Fig. 1 @ 120), and wherein the interrogator (Fig. 1 @ 110) comprises a plurality of inputs each of which is operationally coupled with each of the plurality of optical fibers (Col. 2, line 1-8); and
a computing system (Fig. 1 @ 140) operationally coupled to the interrogator (Fig. 1 @ 110) for calculating MFB twist distribution data (Col. 5, line 31-33; Col. 6, line 65-67 - Col. 7, line 1-13) along the MFB using optical frequency domain reflectometry (OFDR) phase data (Col. 5, line 22-33) of the interrogation data (Col. 2, line 8-13).
Regarding Claim 2, Tongue teaches calculating MFB twist distribution data includes making calculations with the phase difference data of each of the plurality of optical fibers over time using the OFDR phase data to calculate the MFB twist distribution data along the MFB using the MFB twist distribution data (Col. 5, line 22-33: These optical sensors can measure temperature, strain, pressure, and other parameters by monitoring the resulting changes in the intensity, phase, polarization, wavelength, and/or transit time of light within the fiber thus teaches using the phase difference data).
Regarding Claim 3, Tongue teaches calculating MFB twist distribution data does not include calculating position or bend using the phase difference data of the interrogation data (Col. 5, line 22-33: These optical sensors can measure temperature, strain, pressure, and other parameters by monitoring the resulting changes in the intensity, phase, polarization, wavelength, and/or transit time of light within the fiber thus teaches not using the phase difference data).
Regarding Claim 4, Tongue teaches one of: the OFDR difference phase data does not include intensity, polarization, wavelength, or transit time of light in each of the plurality of optical fibers; or calculating does not include using interrogation data having intensity, polarization, wavelength, or transit time of light for the plurality of optical fibers (Col. 5, line 22-33: These optical sensors can measure temperature, strain, pressure, and other parameters by monitoring the resulting changes in the intensity, phase, polarization, wavelength, and/or transit time of light within the fiber thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 5, Tongue teaches interrogator (Fig. 1 @ 110) is configured to produce the OFDR interferometric interrogation data while inputting a laser (Col. 9, line 13-16) that scans a frequency range (Col. 6, line 63-64: tunable light source thus teaches the limitation) into the MFB; and wherein the MFB is a multi-fiber 3D shape sensor bundled (Col. 6, line 20-23).
Regarding Claim 7, Tongue teaches an array of FBGs disposed within the core of each single-core optical fiber from among the plurality of single-core optical fibers, wherein one of:
a) at least a subset of FBGs from among the plurality of FBGs in at least one optical fiber from among the plurality of optical fibers overlaps a subset of gaps between FBGs from among the plurality of FBGs in at least one other optical fiber from among the plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 4, Col. 2, line 19-30),
b) at least a subset of FBGs from among the plurality of FBGs in each optical fiber from among the plurality of optical fibers overlaps a subset of gaps between FBGs from among the plurality of FBGs for each of the other optical fiber from among the plurality of optical fibers in the shape-sensing bundle (Fig. 4, Col. 2, line 30-35), or
c) the array of FBGs disposed within the core of each single-core optical fiber comprises a single elongated FBG running the entire length of a shape-sensing region of the shape-sensing bundle (Fig. 4, Col. 2, line 16-19).
Regarding Claim 8, Tongue teaches the plurality of optical fibers comprises at least seven optical fibers with a first fiber running linearly and six other optical fibers encompassing the first fiber, wherein the first optical fiber remains centrally-positioned with respect to the six other optical fibers, and wherein the six other fibers are helically twisted around the first optical fiber (Col. 1, line 57-63).
Regarding Claim 9, Tongue teaches the plurality of optical fibers comprises at least three optical fibers that are helically twisted around each other to form a triple-helix strand running linearly (Col. 2, line 63-65).
Regarding Claim 11, Tongue teaches calculating MFB twist distribution data (See Claim 1 rejection above) further includes: prior to accounting, unwrapping the change in phase for each of the at least three radially offset fibers and the central fiber (Col. 5, line 22-33: These optical sensors can measure temperature, strain, pressure, and other parameters by monitoring the resulting changes in the intensity, phase, polarization, wavelength, and/or transit time of light within the fiber thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 21, Tongue teaches a fiber optic shape-sensing system (See Claim 1 rejection above) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers helically twisted to form a linearly-running multi-fiber shape-sensing bundle (MFB) for calculating twist of the shape-sensing bundle, wherein each optical fibers from among the plurality of optical fibers comprises a single core (See Claim 1 rejection above);
an interrogator for transmitting light to, and receiving reflected light from the shape-sensing bundle to produce interrogation data, wherein the interrogator is operationally coupled to the shape-sensing bundle, and wherein the interrogator comprises a plurality of inputs each of which is operationally coupled with each of the plurality of optical fibers (See Claim 1 rejection above); and
a computing system operationally coupled to the interrogator for calculating MFB twist distribution data along the MFB using optical frequency domain reflectometry (OFDR) phase data of the interrogation data (See Claim 1 rejection above),
wherein calculating MFB twist distribution data includes making calculations with the phase difference data of each of the plurality of optical fibers over time using the OFDR phase data to calculate the MFB twist distribution data along the MFB using the MFB twist distribution data (See Claim 2 rejection above), and
wherein calculating MFB twist distribution data does not include calculating position or bend using the phase difference data of the interrogation data (See Claim 3 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 22, Tongue teaches one of: the OFDR difference phase data does not include intensity, polarization, wavelength, or transit time of light in each of the plurality of optical fibers; or calculating does not include using interrogation data having intensity, polarization, wavelength, or transit time of light for the plurality of optical fibers (See Claim 4 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 23, Tongue teaches the plurality of optical fibers comprises at least three optical fibers (See Claim 9 rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tongue in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0128600 A1 by ‘T Hooft (hereinafter ‘T Hooft).
Regarding Claim 6, Tongue teaches the MFB (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach a guidewire, wherein the MFB is integrated into the guidewire that is configured to be registered to and visualized with anatomical imaging to display in real-time a location and shape of the guide wire within a patient; and wherein the location and shape may be used for feedback control of robotically controlled medical devices.
However, ‘T Hooft teaches a guidewire (Fig. 1 @ 200, Fig. 2 @ 20, Abstract, Par. [0001, 0006, 0048, 0051]), wherein the MFB (Fig. 3 @ 30, Abstract. Also see Claim 1 rejection) is integrated into the guidewire (Par. [0001, 0006]) that is configured to be registered to and visualized with anatomical imaging to display in real-time (Par. [0002]: monitor the three-dimensional shape of an elongated medical device within the body of a patient thus teaches the limitation) a location and shape of the guide wire within a patient (Par. P0002]); and wherein the location and shape may be used for feedback control of robotically controlled medical devices (Par. [0002]: monitor thus teaches the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify Tonge by ‘T Hooft as taught above such that a guidewire, wherein the MFB is integrated into the guidewire that is configured to be registered to and visualized with anatomical imaging to display in real-time a location and shape of the guide wire within a patient; and wherein the location and shape may be used for feedback control of robotically controlled medical devices is accomplished in order to monitor the three-dimensional shape of an elongated medical device within the body of a patient (Par. [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 12-20 are allowed.
8. Claim 10 is 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.
Reason for Allowance
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
10. As to Claims 10 and 12, the prior arts of record alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitation of “accounting for FBG gap-induced unwrapping discontinuities in a change in phase for each of at least three radially offset fibers and a central fiber to create FBG gap- mitigated phase differences for each of the at least three radially offset fibers and the central fiber;
averaging the radially offset gap-mitigated phase differences of each of the at least three radially offset fibers and subtracting a center fiber gap-mitigated phase difference from an average to yield a twist-phase difference that is indicative of a distributed twist of the multi-fiber bundle;
removing bending-induced changes from the twist-phase difference to create bend- compensated twist-phase difference distribution; and
converting the bend-compensated twist-phase difference distribution from units of the OFDR interferometric interrogation data to units of twist to calculate MFB twist distribution data along the MFB” along with all other limitations of claims 10 and 12.
11. Tongue (US 11002533 B1) teaches a plurality of optical fibers helically twisted to form a linearly-running multi-fiber shape-sensing bundle (MFB) for calculating twist of the shape-sensing bundle, wherein each optical fibers from among the plurality of optical fibers comprises a single core but fails to teach the claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Additional Prior Art
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of shape-sensing system.
US Patent No. 6868195 B2 by Fujita (Fig. 6).
US Patent No. 10663290 B1 by Tongue et al (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
