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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 3-19, in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-2 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Priority
This application is a divisional of application 18/130,673 filed 04/04/2023 which claims benefit of provisional application 63/327,566 filed 04/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted were filed on 06/09/2025, 01/09/2026, and 04/03/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“one of more offsets” should be corrected to:
“one or more offsets”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-12 and 14-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 6-12, 14 and 16-19 recite the limitation "the magnetic field". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted for “the magnetic field” to refer to “the electromagnetic field”.
Claim 5 and 15 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier (US20140303489) in view of Petcavich (US8113210).
Regarding claim 3, Meier teaches an apparatus for locating an implant (40) comprising charge storage device (42) in a living animal, the apparatus (1000) (Figs. 3, 10, & 16A, [0038], “a transponder 42 having a core 44, a coil 46 around the core 44, and a capacitor 48 electrically coupled to the coil 46”, wherein the transponder 42 having the capacitor 48 is a charge storage device, [0035], “the marker 40 can be attached to the implant and/or imbedded in the implant depending upon the particular application”, [0054], “The markers 40 may be implanted in the bone”; the markers 40 may be attached to an implant or may themselves be the implant, [0100]) comprising:
an electromagnetic field generator (1010) configured to generate an electromagnetic field (Fig. 10, [0100], [0103], [0105], [0109], wherein source coils 1052a-d driven by alternating current generates a time-varying magnetic field, thereby inducing an electric field, thus resulting in an electromagnetic field being generated; the source coils 1052a-d are akin to electromagnets 109’ described in applicant’s specification ¶ [00135]);
a sensor (1012, 1602) configured to detect changes in the electromagnetic field and to generate a sensor signal indicative of the changes in the electromagnetic field (Fig. 10, [0100-0101], [0118], [0131], [0139]), wherein at least the charge storage device (42) of the implant (40) causes changes to the electromagnetic field ([0038], “The transponder 42 is a resonating circuit that… produces a wirelessly transmitted location signal in response to the excitation signal”, wherein the production of the wireless location signal superimposes on the electromagnetic field, thus causing a change to the electromagnetic field, [0082], “…the resonant frequency can be produced using the combination of the coil 122 and the capacitor 126”); and
a computer (80; 1016) configured to use the sensor signal to detect a location of the implant (40) (Fig. 10, [0063], “The controller 80 includes hardware, software or other computer-operable media…”, [0064], [0100], [0101], “The excitation source 1010 accordingly allows the sensor assembly 1012 to measure the location signals from the markers 40 at a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio so that the signal processor 1014 or the controller 1016 can accurately calculate the absolute location of the markers 40 relative to a reference frame”, [0139]).
However. Meier fails to expressly disclose that the charge storage device causes changes to the electromagnetic field as the sensor is moved over the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches the reading device (40) reads and displays a representation of the transponder’s (20) electromagnetic field strength gradient as a user moves or sweeps the reading device over the patient’s body (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9, Col 6. Lines 53-62). Petcavich teaches the object (30) within the patient’s body is located by moving the detection apparatus/reading device (40) until the greatest magnitude is indicated by the visual display and/or speaker of the apparatus (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 9-20). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein an object located within a patient’s body causes changes in the electromagnetic field as a sensor is moved over the object. Meier teaches wherein the object is an implant including a charge storage device, and both teach wherein the object comprises a transponder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to move the sensor over the object being detected as recognized by Petcavich (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9, Col 6. Lines 53-62, Col. 7 lines 9-20). By moving the sensor over the implant, changes to the electromagnetic field may be detected due the field gradient, thus allowing for the user to locate the implant/object as recognized by Petcavich (Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9, Col 6. Lines 53-62, Col. 7 lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 4, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 3.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein, in detecting the location of the implant, the computer is configured to determine edges of the charge storage device of the implant based on locations of bimodal peaks in the changes in the magnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches as the sensor is scanned over the length of the transponder (20), the transponder returns to the sensor a peak signal at each end and a minor signal when the scanner is aligned with the mid-portion of the transponder (Col. 6 lines 3-7). Petcavich teaches the peak signals bracket the location of each transponder (20) in the body (Col. 6 lines 7-9). Petcavich teaches wherein the sensor (10) measures electromagnetic energy/field strength (Col. 5 lines 16-32). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein bimodal peaks in the changes of the electromagnetic field indicate the edges of the device (transponder) during movement along a longitudinal axis (length) of the device. Petcavich further teaches processing means configured for determining each end of the transponder (i.e. charged storage device of Meier) by sensing the magnetic poles of the electromagnetic signal generated by the transponder when the reading device/sensor is physically moved over the transponder and determining a location of the transponder based on locations of the magnetic poles (edges) (Claim 1). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein in detecting a location of an object positioned within the body of a patient, a computer or processor means is configured to determine edges of a transponder (charged storage device of Meier) based on locations of bimodal peaks in changes in the electromagnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to have the computer be configured to determine the edges of the charge storage device or transponder based on locations of bimodal peaks in the changes in the electromagnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object/implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 5 lines 16-32, Col. 6 lines 3-9). By determining the edges, a mid-portion of the charged storage device or transponder may be determined as recognized by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 6 lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 5, Meier and Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 4.
Meier teaches wherein the charged storage device (42) is attached to the implant ([0035], “the marker 40 can be attached to the implant”, [0038], “The marker 40.. is a magnetic marker including a transponder 42 having.. a capacitor 48”).
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine edges of the implant based on the determined edges of the charged storage device of the implant and one of more offsets between edges of the implant and edges of the charge storage device of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches wherein the transponder (20) is attached at or adjacent to the distal end of the tube (30) (Claim 2, Col. 5 lines 16-18). Petcavich teaches wherein the electromagnetic field of the transponder (20) sensed by the reading device (40) indicates the location of the distal end of the medical tube (30) and teaches determining the location of the distal end (Abstract, Claim 9). Petcavich further teaches determining each end of the transponder (20) based on locations of magnetic poles and determining the location of the transponder based on the location of the magnetic poles (i.e. edges of the transponder) (Claim 1). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein an offset between the edge of the object (medical tube 30) and the edge of the transponder is zero (because the transponder 20 is attached at the distal end of the tube and the location of the transponder indicates the location of the distal end of the medical tube) and determining edges of the object (medical tube 30) based on determined edges (ends) of the transponder and an offset between the edge of the object and edge of the transponder (the offset is zero). Meier teaches wherein the object is an implant and wherein the transponder corresponds to the charge storage device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to attach the transponders or markers to the distal ends of the implant and to determine the location of the distal ends as taught by Petcavich (Abstract, Claims 1-2 & 9, Col. 5 lines 16-18). The offset between the edge of charge storage device (transponder) and the edge of the implant is known upon attachment of the transponder to the implant, and the offset is zero according to Petcavich as Petcavich teaches attaching the transponder at the edge (distal end) of the tube/implant. Meier modified by the teachings of Petcavich would result in attachment of the markers (transponders) to the distal ends of the implant, thereby resulting in the location of the markers and their edges indicating the location of the edges (distal ends) of the implant. By determining the edges of the implant, a surgeon or operator may know in more detail where exactly the implant is located.
Regarding claim 13, Meier teaches a method for locating an implant (40) comprising a charge storage device (42) in a living animal (Figs. 3, 10, & 16A, [0038], “a transponder 42 having a core 44, a coil 46 around the core 44, and a capacitor 48 electrically coupled to the coil 46”, wherein the transponder 42 having the capacitor 48 is a charge storage device, [0035], “the marker 40 can be attached to the implant and/or imbedded in the implant depending upon the particular application”, [0054], “The markers 40 may be implanted in the bone”; the markers 40 may be attached to an implant or may themselves be the implant, [0100]), the method comprising:
using an electromagnetic field generator (1010) to generate an electromagnetic field (Fig. 10, [0100], [0103], [0105], [0109], wherein source coils 1052a-d driven by alternating current generates a time-varying magnetic field, thereby inducing an electric field, thus resulting in an electromagnetic field being generated; the source coils 1052a-d are akin to electromagnets 109’ described in applicant’s specification ¶ [00135]);
using a sensor (1012, 1602) to detect changes in the electromagnetic field and to generate a sensor signal indicative of the changes in the electromagnetic field (Fig. 10, [0100-0101], [0118], [0131], [0139]), wherein at least the charge storage device (42) of the implant (40) causes changes to the electromagnetic field ([0038], “The transponder 42 is a resonating circuit that… produces a wirelessly transmitted location signal in response to the excitation signal”, wherein the production of the wireless location signal superimposes on the electromagnetic field, thus causing a change to the electromagnetic field, [0082], “…the resonant frequency can be produced using the combination of the coil 122 and the capacitor 126”); and
using a computer (80; 1016) to detect a location of the implant (40) based on the sensor signal (Fig. 10, [0063], “The controller 80 includes hardware, software or other computer-operable media…”, [0064], [0100], [0101], “The excitation source 1010 accordingly allows the sensor assembly 1012 to measure the location signals from the markers 40 at a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio so that the signal processor 1014 or the controller 1016 can accurately calculate the absolute location of the markers 40 relative to a reference frame”, [0139]).
However. Meier fails to expressly disclose that the charge storage device causes changes to the electromagnetic field as the sensor is moved over the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches the reading device (40) reads and displays a representation of the transponder’s (20) electromagnetic field strength gradient as a user moves or sweeps the reading device over the patient’s body (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9, Col 6. Lines 53-62). Petcavich teaches the object (30) within the patient’s body is located by moving the detection apparatus/reading device (40) until the greatest magnitude is indicated by the visual display and/or speaker of the apparatus (Fig. 1, Col. 7 lines 9-20). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein an object located within a patient’s body causes changes in the electromagnetic field as a sensor is moved over the object. Meier teaches wherein the object is an implant including a charge storage device, and both teach wherein the object comprises a transponder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to move the sensor over the object being detected as recognized by Petcavich (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9, Col 6. Lines 53-62, Col. 7 lines 9-20). By moving the sensor over the implant, changes to the electromagnetic field may be detected due the field gradient, thus allowing for the user to locate the implant/object as recognized by Petcavich (Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9, Col 6. Lines 53-62, Col. 7 lines 9-20).
Regarding claim 14, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 13.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein using the computer to detect the location of the implant comprises determining edges of the charge storage device of the implant based on locations of bimodal peaks in the changes in the magnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches as the sensor is scanned over the length of the transponder (20), the transponder returns to the sensor a peak signal at each end and a minor signal when the scanner is aligned with the mid-portion of the transponder (Col. 6 lines 3-7). Petcavich teaches the peak signals bracket the location of each transponder (20) in the body (Col. 6 lines 7-9). Petcavich teaches wherein the sensor (10) measures electromagnetic energy/field strength (Col. 5 lines 16-32). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein bimodal peaks in the changes of the electromagnetic field indicate the edges of the device (transponder) during movement along a longitudinal axis (length) of the device. Petcavich further teaches processing means configured for determining each end of the transponder (i.e. charged storage device of Meier) by sensing the magnetic poles of the electromagnetic signal generated by the transponder when the reading device/sensor is physically moved over the transponder and determining a location of the transponder based on locations of the magnetic poles (edges) (Claim 1). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein in detecting a location of an object positioned within the body of a patient, a computer or processor means is configured to determine edges of a transponder (charged storage device of Meier) based on locations of bimodal peaks in changes in the electromagnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to have the computer be configured to determine the edges of the charge storage device or transponder based on locations of bimodal peaks in the changes in the electromagnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object/implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 5 lines 16-32, Col. 6 lines 3-9). By determining the edges, a mid-portion of the charged storage device or transponder may be determined as recognized by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 6 lines 3-9).
Regarding claim 15, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 14.
Meier teaches wherein the charged storage device (42) is attached to the implant ([0035], “the marker 40 can be attached to the implant”, [0038], “The marker 40.. is a magnetic marker including a transponder 42 having.. a capacitor 48”).
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine edges of the implant based on the determined edges of the charge storage device of the implant and one of more offsets between edges of the implant and edges of the charge storage device of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches wherein the transponder (20) is attached at or adjacent to the distal end of the tube (30) (Claim 2, Col. 5 lines 16-18). Petcavich teaches wherein the electromagnetic field of the transponder (20) sensed by the reading device (40) indicates the location of the distal end of the medical tube (30) and teaches determining the location of the distal end (Abstract, Claim 9). Petcavich further teaches determining each end of the transponder (20) based on locations of magnetic poles and determining the location of the transponder based on the location of the magnetic poles (i.e. edges of the transponder) (Claim 1). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein an offset between the edge of the object (medical tube 30) and the edge of the transponder is zero (because the transponder 20 is attached at the distal end of the tube and the location of the transponder indicates the location of the distal end of the medical tube) and determining edges of the object (medical tube 30) based on determined edges (ends) of the transponder and an offset between the edge of the object and edge of the transponder (the offset is zero). Meier teaches wherein the object is an implant and wherein the transponder corresponds to the charge storage device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to attach the transponders or markers to the distal ends of the implant and to determine the location of the distal ends as taught by Petcavich (Abstract, Claims 1-2 & 9, Col. 5 lines 16-18). The offset between the edge of charge storage device (transponder) and the edge of the implant is known upon attachment of the transponder to the implant, and the offset is zero according to Petcavich as Petcavich teaches attaching the transponder at the edge (distal end) of the tube/implant. Meier modified by the teachings of Petcavich would result in attachment of the markers (transponders) to the distal ends of the implant, thereby resulting in the location of the markers and their edges indicating the location of the edges (distal ends) of the implant. By determining the edges of the implant, a surgeon or operator may know in more detail where exactly the implant is located.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier (US20140303489) in view of Petcavich (US8113210) as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Brander (US20100207765).
Regarding claim 6, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 4.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine a depth of the implant based on a magnitude of the change in the magnetic field.
In an analogous locating of an implant field of endeavor, Brander teaches such a feature. Brander teaches locating a PIT tag (12) comprising a transponder implanted within a specimen (16) ([0026], [0028]). Brander teaches using a locating apparatus (14) comprising a search coil (20) electromagnetically coupled to the PIT tag (12) to locate the PIT tag (12) ([0026-0027]). Brander teaches wherein the locating apparatus (14) may determine a depth at which the PIT tag (12) is implanted via a processing unit (18) ([0028]). Brander teaches a horizontal PIT tag (i.e. a PIT tag oriented perpendicular to the search coil) will generate two maxima positions to either side of a center of the PIT tag (i.e. bimodal peaks) ([0029]). Brander teaches the search coil (20) is lowered to contact the skin to determine the depth of the PIT tag (12) ([0028]) and the locating apparatus (14) measures a distance D between the search coil (20) and pit tag (12) ([0027], wherein distance D is the depth of the PIT tag when the search coil is lowered to contact the skin). Brander teaches the peak amplitude is related to the distance D ([0039], [0052]) and the depth is determined based change in load conductance or strength of the transponded signal received from the Pit tag (amplitude of the response signal) (Abstract, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to determine the depth of the implant as taught by Brander (Abstract, [0024], [0028-0029], [0039], [0052]). By knowing the depth, more information of the exact position of the implant is known and the information may be helpful to reduce damage to the patient if it is necessary to remove the implant as recognized by Brander ([0005]).
However, the combination noted above fails to expressly disclose wherein the magnitude of the change in the magnetic field is at the bimodal peaks in the changes in the magnetic field during the movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches measuring the peak signal of the transponder’s electromagnetic field at each end of the transponder to determine the location of the transponder (Claim 20, Col. 6 lines 3-9). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein the measurement of the change in the magnetic field is performed at the bimodal peaks. Petcavich further teaches sweeping the reading device or detection apparatus over the patient’s body and length of the transponder (Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-4) and wherein the transponder or PIT elements may be longitudinally spaced along the medical tube (30) (Col. 4 lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier in view of Brander to measure the depth at the bimodal peaks during movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 20, Col. 4 lines 24-26, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9). The signal is obviously strongest at the peak and therefore the measurement of the depth of the implant should be performed at the bimodal peaks because signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is best where the signal is strongest and the bimodal peaks is where the transponder or charge storage device attached to the implant is located.
Regarding claim 16, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 14.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine a depth of the implant based on a magnitude of the change in the magnetic field.
In an analogous locating of an implant field of endeavor, Brander teaches such a feature. Brander teaches locating a PIT tag (12) comprising a transponder implanted within a specimen (16) ([0026], [0028]). Brander teaches using a locating apparatus (14) comprising a search coil (20) electromagnetically coupled to the PIT tag (12) to locate the PIT tag (12) ([0026-0027]). Brander teaches wherein the locating apparatus (14) may determine a depth at which the PIT tag (12) is implanted via a processing unit (18) ([0028]). Brander teaches a horizontal PIT tag (i.e. a PIT tag oriented perpendicular to the search coil) will generate two maxima positions to either side of a center of the PIT tag (i.e. bimodal peaks) ([0029]). Brander teaches the search coil (20) is lowered to contact the skin to determine the depth of the PIT tag (12) ([0028]) and the locating apparatus (14) measures a distance D between the search coil (20) and pit tag (12) ([0027], wherein distance D is the depth of the PIT tag when the search coil is lowered to contact the skin). Brander teaches the peak amplitude is related to the distance D ([0039], [0052]) and the depth is determined based change in load conductance or strength of the transponded signal received from the Pit tag (amplitude of the response signal) (Abstract, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to determine the depth of the implant as taught by Brander (Abstract, [0024], [0028-0029], [0039], [0052]). By knowing the depth, more information of the exact position of the implant is known and the information may be helpful to reduce damage to the patient if it is necessary to remove the implant as recognized by Brander ([0005]).
However, the combination noted above fails to expressly disclose wherein the magnitude of the change in the magnetic field is at the bimodal peaks in the changes in the magnetic field during the movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches measuring the peak signal of the transponder’s electromagnetic field at each end of the transponder to determine the location of the transponder (Claim 20, Col. 6 lines 3-9). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein the measurement of the change in the magnetic field is performed at the bimodal peaks. Petcavich further teaches sweeping the reading device or detection apparatus over the patient’s body and length of the transponder (Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-4) and wherein the transponder or PIT elements may be longitudinally spaced along the medical tube (30) (Col. 4 lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier in view of Brander to measure the depth at the bimodal peaks during movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 20, Col. 4 lines 24-26, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9). The signal is obviously strongest at the peak and therefore the measurement of the depth of the implant should be performed at the bimodal peaks because signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is best where the signal is strongest and the bimodal peaks is where the transponder or charge storage device attached to the implant is located.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier (US20140303489) in view of Petcavich (US8113210) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang (US20130300719).
Regarding claim 7, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 4.
Petcavich teaches wherein peak signals occur at each end of the implant (transponder), thereby teaching bimodal peaks (Col. 6 lines 3-9).
However, Meier in view of Petcavich fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine an orientation of the implant based on a difference between magnitudes of the change in the magnetic field at the bimodal peaks in the changes in the magnetic field during the movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous position and orientation sensing field of endeavor, Wang teaches such a feature. Wang teaches position and orientation sensing of a stylus (100) via measuring electromagnetic field strength (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0014]). Wang teaches the stylus produces two electromagnetic fields using a proximal transmitter and a distal transmitter inside the stylus (100) (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0014]). Wang further teaches wherein the two electromagnetic fields produce respective peaks, i.e. maximums, displaced from one another, thereby producing bimodal peaks ([0016]). Wang teaches wherein the orientation of the stylus may be determined, via a processor (206), based on differences in sensed field strength between the two electromagnetic fields, i.e. bimodal peaks (Abstract, [0016], [0018], Claim 22). Wang therefore teaches wherein a computer is configured to determine an orientation of an object based on a difference between magnitudes of change in magnetic field at bimodal peaks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to have the computer be configured to determine orientation of the object/implant based on a difference between magnetic field strength at bimodal peaks as taught by Wang (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0014], [0016], [0018], Claim 22). Knowing the orientation of an implant may be useful to a surgeon when performing a procedure involving said implant such as its removal.
Claims 8-9, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier (US20140303489) in view of Petcavich (US8113210) as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Roybal (US6150810).
Regarding claim 8, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 3.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to calculate a derivative of the changes in the magnetic field and to use the calculated derivative to detect the location of the implant.
In an analogous detection of objects field of endeavor, Roybal teaches such a feature. Roybal teaches using a magnetic field to detect ferromagnetic objects (Abstract). Roybal teaches the location of a pistol (86) may be determined by calculating where a derivative with respect to a magnetic field gradient is equal to zero (Fig. 6C, Col. 15 lines 10-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to calculate and find where the derivative of the magnetic field gradient is equal to zero as taught by Roybal (Fig. 6C, Col. 15 lines 10-32). The location of the object to be detected may be determined by finding where the derivative is equal to zero as recognized by Roybal (Col. 15 lines 10-32). Where the derivative is equal to zero may yield a more precise result of the location of the implant.
Regarding claim 9, Meier in view of Petcavich and Roybal teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 8.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine edges of the charge storage device of the implant during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches as the sensor is scanned over the length of the transponder (20), the transponder returns to the sensor a peak signal at each end and a minor signal when the scanner is aligned with the mid-portion of the transponder (Col. 6 lines 3-7). Petcavich teaches the peak signals bracket the location of each transponder (20) in the body (Col. 6 lines 7-9). Petcavich teaches wherein the sensor (10) measures electromagnetic energy/field strength (Col. 5 lines 16-32). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein bimodal peaks in the changes of the electromagnetic field indicate the edges of the device (transponder) during movement along a longitudinal axis (length) of the device. Petcavich further teaches processing means configured for determining each end of the transponder (i.e. charged storage device of Meier) by sensing the magnetic poles of the electromagnetic signal generated by the transponder when the reading device/sensor is physically moved over the transponder and determining a location of the transponder based on locations of the magnetic poles (edges) (Claim 1). Petcavich therefore teaches determining edges of a transponder (charged storage device of Meier) during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to have the computer be configured to determine the edges of the charge storage device or transponder based on locations of bimodal peaks in the changes in the electromagnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object/implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 5 lines 16-32, Col. 6 lines 3-9). By determining the edges, a mid-portion of the charged storage device or transponder may be determined as recognized by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 6 lines 3-9).
However, the combination noted above fails to teach wherein the edges of the charge storage device are determined based on locations where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero.
In an analogous detection of objects field of endeavor, Roybal teaches such a feature. Roybal teaches using a magnetic field to detect ferromagnetic objects (Abstract). Roybal teaches the location of a pistol (86) may be determined by calculating where a derivative with respect to a magnetic field gradient is equal to zero (Fig. 6C, Col. 15 lines 10-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to use where the derivative is equal to zero for determining location as taught by Roybal (Col. 15 lines 10-32). Petcavich teaches above wherein the peaks correspond to edges of the charge storage device. Meier in view of Petcavich modified further by Roybal would result in calculating the derivative of the peaks as that would result in zero, thus identifying the location of the edges. By identifying where the derivative is equal to zero, a more precise location of the edges may be found rather than relying on where the peaks occur.
Regarding claim 12, Meier in view of Petcavich and Roybal teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 8.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine a midline of the implant based on a location where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero during movement of the sensor across a longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches as the sensor is scanned over the length of the transponder (20) (i.e. the longitudinal axis), the transponder returns to the sensor a peak signal at each end and a minor signal when the scanner is aligned with the mid-portion of the transponder (Col. 6 lines 3-7). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein a local minimum (minor signal) occurs at the mid-portion (i.e. midline) of the transponder. The local minimum is a location where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero (the derivative at peak of the minimum is equal to zero). Petcavich further expressly discloses determining the location of the mid-portion of the transponder (Claim 8). Therefore, Petcavich teaches determining a midline of an implant (transponder 20) based on a location where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero during movement of the sensor (10) across a longitudinal axis of the implant (transponder 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to determine the location of the midline or mid-portion of the implant based on a location where a peak occurs or where the derivative of the magnetic field is equal to zero as taught by Petcavich (Claim 8, Col. 6 lines 3-7). By locating the center or midline of the implant, the surgeon or user may know a more exact location of the implant for surgery and/or removal.
Regarding claim 17, Meier in view of Petcavich teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 13.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein using the computer to detect the location of the implant based on the sensor signal comprises using the computer to calculate a derivative of the changes in the magnetic field and to use the calculated derivative to detect the location of the implant.
In an analogous detection of objects field of endeavor, Roybal teaches such a feature. Roybal teaches using a magnetic field to detect ferromagnetic objects (Abstract). Roybal teaches the location of a pistol (86) may be determined by calculating where a derivative with respect to a magnetic field gradient is equal to zero (Fig. 6C, Col. 15 lines 10-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to calculate and find where the derivative of the magnetic field gradient is equal to zero as taught by Roybal (Fig. 6C, Col. 15 lines 10-32). The location of the object to be detected may be determined by finding where the derivative is equal to zero as recognized by Roybal (Col. 15 lines 10-32). Where the derivative is equal to zero may yield a more precise result of the location of the implant.
Regarding claim 18, Meier in view of Petcavich and Roybal teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 17.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein using the computer to detect the location of the implant based on the sensor signal comprises using the computer to determine edges of the charge storage device of the implant during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches as the sensor is scanned over the length of the transponder (20), the transponder returns to the sensor a peak signal at each end and a minor signal when the scanner is aligned with the mid-portion of the transponder (Col. 6 lines 3-7). Petcavich teaches the peak signals bracket the location of each transponder (20) in the body (Col. 6 lines 7-9). Petcavich teaches wherein the sensor (10) measures electromagnetic energy/field strength (Col. 5 lines 16-32). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein bimodal peaks in the changes of the electromagnetic field indicate the edges of the device (transponder) during movement along a longitudinal axis (length) of the device. Petcavich further teaches processing means configured for determining each end of the transponder (i.e. charged storage device of Meier) by sensing the magnetic poles of the electromagnetic signal generated by the transponder when the reading device/sensor is physically moved over the transponder and determining a location of the transponder based on locations of the magnetic poles (edges) (Claim 1). Petcavich therefore teaches determining edges of a transponder (charged storage device of Meier) during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to have the computer be configured to determine the edges of the charge storage device or transponder based on locations of bimodal peaks in the changes in the electromagnetic field during movement of the sensor along a longitudinal axis of the object/implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 5 lines 16-32, Col. 6 lines 3-9). By determining the edges, a mid-portion of the charged storage device or transponder may be determined as recognized by Petcavich (Claim 1, Col. 6 lines 3-9).
However, the combination noted above fails to teach wherein the edges of the charge storage device are determined based on locations where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero.
In an analogous detection of objects field of endeavor, Roybal teaches such a feature. Roybal teaches using a magnetic field to detect ferromagnetic objects (Abstract). Roybal teaches the location of a pistol (86) may be determined by calculating where a derivative with respect to a magnetic field gradient is equal to zero (Fig. 6C, Col. 15 lines 10-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to use where the derivative is equal to zero for determining location as taught by Roybal (Col. 15 lines 10-32). Petcavich teaches above wherein the peaks correspond to edges of the charge storage device. Meier in view of Petcavich modified further by Roybal would result in calculating the derivative of the peaks as that would result in zero, thus identifying the location of the edges. By identifying where the derivative is equal to zero, a more precise location of the edges may be found rather than relying on where the peaks occur.
Regarding claim 19, Meier in view of Petcavich and Roybal teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 17.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein using the computer to detect the location of the implant based on the sensor signal comprises using the computer to determine a midline of the implant based on a location where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero during movement of the sensor across a longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches as the sensor is scanned over the length of the transponder (20) (i.e. the longitudinal axis), the transponder returns to the sensor a peak signal at each end and a minor signal when the scanner is aligned with the mid-portion of the transponder (Col. 6 lines 3-7). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein a local minimum (minor signal) occurs at the mid-portion (i.e. midline) of the transponder. The local minimum is a location where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero (the derivative at peak of the minimum is equal to zero). Petcavich further expressly discloses determining the location of the mid-portion of the transponder (Claim 8). Therefore, Petcavich teaches determining a midline of an implant (transponder 20) based on a location where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero during movement of the sensor (10) across a longitudinal axis of the implant (transponder 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to determine the location of the midline or mid-portion of the implant based on a location where a peak occurs or where the derivative of the magnetic field is equal to zero as taught by Petcavich (Claim 8, Col. 6 lines 3-7). By locating the center or midline of the implant, the surgeon or user may know a more exact location of the implant for surgery and/or removal.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier (US20140303489) in view of Petcavich (US8113210) and Roybal (US6150810) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Brander (US20100207765).
Regarding claim 10, Meier in view of Petcavich and Roybal teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 9.
However, Meier fails to teach wherein the computer is configured to determine a depth of the implant based on magnitudes of the changes in the magnetic field.
In an analogous locating of an implant field of endeavor, Brander teaches such a feature. Brander teaches locating a PIT tag (12) comprising a transponder implanted within a specimen (16) ([0026], [0028]). Brander teaches using a locating apparatus (14) comprising a search coil (20) electromagnetically coupled to the PIT tag (12) to locate the PIT tag (12) ([0026-0027]). Brander teaches wherein the locating apparatus (14) may determine a depth at which the PIT tag (12) is implanted via a processing unit (18) ([0028]). Brander teaches a horizontal PIT tag (i.e. a PIT tag oriented perpendicular to the search coil) will generate two maxima positions to either side of a center of the PIT tag (i.e. bimodal peaks) ([0029]). Brander teaches the search coil (20) is lowered to contact the skin to determine the depth of the PIT tag (12) ([0028]) and the locating apparatus (14) measures a distance D between the search coil (20) and pit tag (12) ([0027], wherein distance D is the depth of the PIT tag when the search coil is lowered to contact the skin). Brander teaches the peak amplitude is related to the distance D ([0039], [0052]) and the depth is determined based change in load conductance or strength of the transponded signal received from the Pit tag (amplitude of the response signal) (Abstract, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier to determine the depth of the implant as taught by Brander (Abstract, [0024], [0028-0029], [0039], [0052]). By knowing the depth, more information of the exact position of the implant is known and the information may be helpful to reduce damage to the patient if it is necessary to remove the implant as recognized by Brander ([0005]).
However, the combination noted above fails to expressly disclose wherein the magnitudes of the changes in the magnetic field is at the locations where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero during the movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant.
In an analogous locating of objects within a body field of endeavor, Petcavich teaches such a feature. Petcavich teaches a reading device (40) including a sensor (10) is configured to locate a transponder (20) attached to a medical tube (30) positioned within a body of a patient (Figs. 1-2, Col. 5 lines 15-50). Petcavich teaches measuring the peak signal of the transponder’s electromagnetic field at each end of the transponder to determine the location of the transponder (Claim 20, Col. 6 lines 3-9). Petcavich therefore teaches wherein the measurement of the change in the magnetic field is performed at the bimodal peaks. Because the bimodal peaks are where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field are equal to zero, Petcavich therefore teaches measuring the magnitude of the changes at locations where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field is equal to zero. Petcavich further teaches sweeping the reading device or detection apparatus over the patient’s body and length of the transponder (Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-4) and wherein the transponder or PIT elements may be longitudinally spaced along the medical tube (30) (Col. 4 lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Meier in view of Brander to measure the depth at the bimodal peaks (i.e. where the derivative is equal to zero) during movement of the sensor along the longitudinal axis of the implant as taught by Petcavich (Claim 20, Col. 4 lines 24-26, Col. 5 lines 43-48, Col. 6 lines 3-9). The signal is obviously strongest at the peak and therefore the measurement of the depth of the implant should be performed at the bimodal peaks because signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is best where the signal is strongest and the bimodal peaks is where the transponder or charge storage device attached to the implant is located.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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 and if the associated 112(b) issues are corrected. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Within the context of claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest to the ordinarily skilled artisan “wherein the computer is configured to determine an orientation of the implant based on a difference between magnitudes of the change in the magnetic field at the locations where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero”.
The most relevant prior arts are Meier (US20140303489) and Petcavich (US8113210). Meier teaches markers (40) which include a transponder (42) having a capacitor (48) and therefore a charge storage device ([0035], [0038]). Meier teaches wherein the markers (40) may be attached to an implant or may themselves be implants attached to bone ([0035], [0054]). Meier further teaches determining a location of the markers and thus implant ([0064], [0100-0101], [0139]). However, Meier fails to teach measuring the electromagnetic field at bimodal peaks or at locations where the derivative of the changes in the electromagnetic field equals zero. Petcavich teaches scanning over a length of a marker/transponder (20) and returning bimodal peaks indicating each end of the transponder for detecting its location in a body of a patient (Col. 6 lines 3-9). Petcavich also teaches wherein sensing the peak signals at each end of the transponder, i.e. the bimodal peaks, allows for determining an orientation of the transponder and a medical tube to which the transponder is attached (Claim 14). However, Petcavich fails to explicitly disclose that the orientation of the transponder or medical tube is based on a difference in magnitudes of the change in the electromagnetic field at the bimodal peaks or where the derivative of the changes in the magnetic field equals zero.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOMMY T LY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6404. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00pm-8:00pm eastern time.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/TOMMY T LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights