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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 05/20/2025.
The amendments filed on 05/20/2025 have been entered. Accordingly claims 1-18 remain pending. Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are presently amended.
The previous objections to claims 1 and 10 have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 10.
The previous rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, applicant challenged secondary references Sliwa and Takano which are not relied on to teach the new limitations of independent claims 1 and 10 relating to the tubular wall member.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2018/0360419, filed June 15, 2017) in view of Rubin et al. (US 2018/0335841, filed May 19, 2017), Shai (US 2011/0210931, September 1, 2011), and Corbett, III et al. (US 2015/0257733, September 17, 2015, hereinafter “Corbett”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a wearable ultrasound probe (“A single hand operation ultrasound probe array is provided. The single ultrasound probe array places individual transducers, each having different transducer characteristics, on sheaths that fit over fingers of a user.” abstract; Figs. 1-5 and corresponding descriptions) comprising:
a housing (finger sheath 106 in Figs. 1, 4 and corresponding description) having a dorsal side and a palmar side (see Fig. 3 and corresponding description; also see “back hand view of glove 110” in Fig. 4b and corresponding description and “palm view of glove 110” in Fig. 4a and corresponding description), a proximal end (“first end 106a” in Fig. 1 and corresponding description) and a distal end (“second end 106b” in Fig. 1 and corresponding description), and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1, re-produced below, and corresponding description), wherein the proximal end comprises a single finger-receiving aperture that is configured to form a sleeve including a tubular wall member and defining an inner lumen (“each of the finger sheaths 106 is designed with a hollow cavity sized and dimensioned to fit over one or more fingers of a user. In particular, each of the finger sheaths 106 has a first end 106a and a second end 106b with the first end 106a including an opening sized and dimensioned to receive a finger of a user” [0023]; examiner notes that a singular finger sheath 106 comprises a single finger-receiving aperture);
PNG
media_image1.png
437
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an ultrasound array disposed at the distal end (“the plurality of transducers 104 are located proximate to the second end 106b of each of the plurality of finger sheaths 106 and are configured to fire and receive ultrasonic waves in an end firing orientation, as depicted in FIG. 1B and 3B.” [0024]).
Zhu fails to disclose the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material.
However, Rubin teaches, in an analogous field of endeavor (e.g. finger wearable sensor, e.g., see Abstract), the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material (“Tensile member 258 preferably comprises an elastic textile, such as Lycra, an elastomer, such as latex, or another suitable high strain material.” [0040]; also see [0039]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material as taught by Rubin in order to stretch to accommodate various finger sizes ([0040] of Rubin).
Zhu also fails to disclose a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers.
However, Shai teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers (“sections 804a,b may be dynamic (also "changeable", or specifically "moveable") to generally influence or control the size of cavity 803 (or otherwise "to generally change the size of the cavity"). In other words, sections 804a,b may be dynamic (i.e. may be changed or moved) to facilitate cavity 803 accommodating different sizes of a human finger (so that fingers of different sizes may be inserted into the cavity). Specifically, sections 804a,b may be moved (also "relocated", or "repositioned") or changed, for increasing and decreasing the size of cavity 803, such that larger sized fingers and smaller sized fingers, respectively, may fit into the cavity and be properly gripped in the cavity (to prevent device 800 from slipping off). More specifically, in some embodiments, sections 804a,b may be generally extended from section 802 towards cavity 803, or retracted into section 802. In other words, 804a,b may generally protrude into cavity 803 or recede from cavity 803, such as suggested by directions illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B.” [0267]; also see Figs. 8A-D and corresponding descriptions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers as taught by Shai in order to accommodate different sizes of a human finger ([0267] of Shai).
Although Zhu discloses wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array (“the probe array 102 can be implemented as a linear probe, a convex probe, a phased probe, a single probe, a 2D matrix probe, etc.” [0027]), Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array configured for imaging in a non-near field over a wide field of view or a near field over a narrow field of view. Examiner notes that Zhu does disclose the ultrasound array being a phased array or a linear array which are presumably capable of imaging the claimed fields of view, Zhu merely fails to explicitly state as such.
However, Corbett teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array configured for imaging in a non-near field over a wide field of view or a near field over a narrow field of view (“A phased array transducer permits imaging over a wide field of view at some distance from the array, while allowing imaging through a narrow access. A linear array permits imaging over a narrower field of view but provides good imaging of structures near the surface of the array. This is frequently the type of imagery that is highly desirable in surgical situations.” [0019]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array configured for imaging in a non-near field over a wide field of view or a near field over a narrow field of view as taught by Corbett in order to provide an appropriate field of view for a particular usage, e.g., good imaging of nearby structures in a narrow field of view for surgical situations ([0019] of Corbett).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu discloses a wearable ultrasound probe (“A single hand operation ultrasound probe array is provided. The single ultrasound probe array places individual transducers, each having different transducer characteristics, on sheaths that fit over fingers of a user.” abstract; Figs. 1-5 and corresponding descriptions) comprising:
a housing (finger sheath 106 in Figs. 1, 4 and corresponding description) having a dorsal side and a palmar side (see Fig. 3 and corresponding description; also see “back hand view of glove 110” in Fig. 4b and corresponding description and “palm view of glove 110” in Fig. 4a and corresponding description), a proximal end (“first end 106a” in Fig. 1 and corresponding description) and a distal end (“second end 106b” in Fig. 1 and corresponding description), and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (see annotated Fig. 1, re-produced below, and corresponding description), wherein the proximal end comprises a finger-receiving aperture that is configured to form a sleeve including a tubular wall member defining an inner lumen(“each of the finger sheaths 106 is designed with a hollow cavity sized and dimensioned to fit over one or more fingers of a user. In particular, each of the finger sheaths 106 has a first end 106a and a second end 106b with the first end 106a including an opening sized and dimensioned to receive a finger of a user” [0023]; examiner notes that a singular finger sheath 106 comprises a single finger-receiving aperture);
PNG
media_image1.png
437
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an ultrasound array disposed at the distal end of the housing (“the plurality of transducers 104 are located proximate to the second end 106b of each of the plurality of finger sheaths 106 and are configured to fire and receive ultrasonic waves in an end firing orientation, as depicted in FIG. 1B and 3B.” [0024]).
Zhu fails to disclose the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material.
However, Rubin teaches, in an analogous field of endeavor (e.g. finger wearable sensor, e.g., see Abstract), the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material (“Tensile member 258 preferably comprises an elastic textile, such as Lycra, an elastomer, such as latex, or another suitable high strain material.” [0040]; also see [0039]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with the tubular wall member being formed from an elastomeric material as taught by Rubin in order to stretch to accommodate various finger sizes ([0040] of Rubin).
Zhu also fails to disclose a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers.
However, Shai teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers (“sections 804a,b may be dynamic (also "changeable", or specifically "moveable") to generally influence or control the size of cavity 803 (or otherwise "to generally change the size of the cavity"). In other words, sections 804a,b may be dynamic (i.e. may be changed or moved) to facilitate cavity 803 accommodating different sizes of a human finger (so that fingers of different sizes may be inserted into the cavity). Specifically, sections 804a,b may be moved (also "relocated", or "repositioned") or changed, for increasing and decreasing the size of cavity 803, such that larger sized fingers and smaller sized fingers, respectively, may fit into the cavity and be properly gripped in the cavity (to prevent device 800 from slipping off). More specifically, in some embodiments, sections 804a,b may be generally extended from section 802 towards cavity 803, or retracted into section 802. In other words, 804a,b may generally protrude into cavity 803 or recede from cavity 803, such as suggested by directions illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B.” [0267]; also see Figs. 8A-D and corresponding descriptions).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with a portion of the tubular wall member configured to extend or project into the inner lumen to form a deformable gripping member for gripping a finger, wherein the extension or projection of a bottom side of the tubular wall member into the inner lumen is configured to retain relatively small diameter fingers while the extension or projection of the bottom side of the tubular wall member is configured to distend outward from the inner lumen to accommodate relatively large diameter fingers as taught by Shai in order to accommodate different sizes of a human finger ([0267] of Shai).
Although Zhu discloses wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array (“the probe array 102 can be implemented as a linear probe, a convex probe, a phased probe, a single probe, a 2D matrix probe, etc.” [0027]), Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array configured for imaging in a non-near field over a wide field of view or a near field over a narrow field of view. Examiner notes that Zhu does disclose the ultrasound array being a phased array or a linear array which are presumably capable of imaging the claimed fields of view, Zhu merely fails to explicitly state as such.
However, Corbett teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array configured for imaging in a non-near field over a wide field of view or a near field over a narrow field of view (“A phased array transducer permits imaging over a wide field of view at some distance from the array, while allowing imaging through a narrow access. A linear array permits imaging over a narrower field of view but provides good imaging of structures near the surface of the array. This is frequently the type of imagery that is highly desirable in surgical situations.” [0019]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with wherein the ultrasound array comprises a phased array or a linear array configured for imaging in a non-near field over a wide field of view or a near field over a narrow field of view as taught by Corbett in order to provide an appropriate field of view for a particular usage, e.g., good imaging of nearby structures in a narrow field of view for surgical situations ([0019] of Corbett).
Claims 2-4, 6, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Rubin, Shai, and Corbett as applied to claims 1 and 10, respectively, above and further in view of Flesch et al. (US 2005/0085730, April 21, 2005, hereinafter “Flesch”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 75-90 degrees from the longitudinal axis.
However, Flesch teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 75-90 degrees from the longitudinal axis (“the bi-plane transducer is mounted on the probe at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the probe [...] a first said bi-plane transducer and a second said bi-plane transducer mounted in the vicinity of the first said bi-plane transducer, and the second bi-plane transducer is rotated with respect to the second bi-plane array transducer through an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.” [0043]-[0043]; examiner notes that the second bi-plane array transducer can be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from the first bi-plane transducer which is an additional 30-60 degrees from the first transducers 30-60 degrees not the horizontal, i.e. 60-120 degrees as also explained in e.g. [0108]).
Zhu modified by Corbett discloses the claimed invention except wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 75-90 degrees from the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the array at a particular angle from the longitudinal axis as taught by Flesch, since no criticality is given for the claimed range it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 80-85 degrees from the longitudinal axis.
However, Flesch teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 80-85 degrees from the longitudinal axis(“the bi-plane transducer is mounted on the probe at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the probe [...] a first said bi-plane transducer and a second said bi-plane transducer mounted in the vicinity of the first said bi-plane transducer, and the second bi-plane transducer is rotated with respect to the second bi-plane array transducer through an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.” [0043]-[0043]; examiner notes that the second bi-plane array transducer can be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from the first bi-plane transducer which is an additional 30-60 degrees from the first transducers 30-60 degrees not the horizontal, i.e. 60-120 degrees as also explained in e.g. [0108]).
Zhu modified by Corbett discloses the claimed invention except wherein the ultrasound array is angled between 80-85 degrees from the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the array at a particular angle from the longitudinal axis as taught by Flesch, since no criticality is given for the claimed range it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhu further discloses further comprising a second ultrasound array (“transducers 104” [0024]; also see Fig. 3A and corresponding description).
Zhu fails to explicitly disclose a second ultrasound array that is angled between 105-155 degrees away from the ultrasound array.
However, Flesch teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a second ultrasound array that is angled between 105-155 degrees away from the ultrasound array (“the bi-plane transducer is mounted on the probe at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees [second ultrasound array] with respect to the longitudinal axis of the probe [...] a first [second ultrasound array] said bi-plane transducer and a second [ultrasound array] said bi-plane transducer mounted in the vicinity of the first said bi-plane transducer, and the second bi-plane transducer is rotated with respect to the second bi-plane array transducer through an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.” [0043]-[0043]; examiner notes that the second [claimed ultrasound array] bi-plane array transducer can be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from the first [claimed second ultrasound array] bi-plane transducer which is an additional 30-60 degrees from the first transducers 30-60 degrees not the horizontal, i.e. 60-120 degrees as also explained in e.g. [0108]).
Zhu modified by Corbett discloses the claimed invention except wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 105-155 degrees away from the ultrasound array. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the arrays at particular angles as taught by Flesch, since no criticality is given for the claimed range it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 4 as stated above. Zhu further discloses wherein the ultrasound array is oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis (“the plurality of transducers 104 are located proximate to the second end 106b of each of the plurality of finger sheaths 106 and are configured to fire and receive ultrasonic waves in an end firing orientation, as depicted in FIG. 1B and 3B.” [0024]; also see Figs. 1b and 3b and corresponding descriptions).
Zhu fails to disclose the second array oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis.
However, Corbett further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, the second array oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis (see transverse element 24 in Fig. 7 and corresponding description).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with the second array oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis as taught by Corbett in order to allow unskilled users to perform FAST scan with simplified use and training through more natural positions ([0021]-[0022] of Corbett).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Zhu further discloses further comprising a second ultrasound array (“transducers 104” [0024]; also see Fig. 3A and corresponding description). Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 115-135 degrees from the ultrasound array.
However, Flesch teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 115-135 degrees from the ultrasound array (“the bi-plane transducer is mounted on the probe at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees [second ultrasound array] with respect to the longitudinal axis of the probe [...] a first [second ultrasound array] said bi-plane transducer and a second [first ultrasound array] said bi-plane transducer mounted in the vicinity of the first said bi-plane transducer, and the second bi-plane transducer is rotated with respect to the second bi-plane array transducer through an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.” [0043]-[0043]; examiner notes that the second [claimed ultrasound array] bi-plane array transducer can be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from the first [claimed second ultrasound array] bi-plane transducer which is an additional 30-60 degrees from the first transducers 30-60 degrees not the horizontal, i.e. 60-120 degrees as also explained in e.g. [0108]).
Zhu modified by Corbett discloses the claimed invention except wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 115-135 degrees from the ultrasound array. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the arrays at particular angles as taught by Flesch, since no criticality is given for the claimed range and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Zhu further discloses further comprising a second ultrasound array (“transducers 104” [0024]; also see Fig. 3A and corresponding description). Zhu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 115-125 degrees from the ultrasound array.
However, Flesch teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 115-125 degrees from the ultrasound array (“the bi-plane transducer is mounted on the probe at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees [second ultrasound array] with respect to the longitudinal axis of the probe [...] a first [second ultrasound array] said bi-plane transducer and a second [first ultrasound array] said bi-plane transducer mounted in the vicinity of the first said bi-plane transducer, and the second bi-plane transducer is rotated with respect to the second bi-plane array transducer through an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.” [0043]-[0043]; examiner notes that the second [claimed ultrasound array] bi-plane array transducer can be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from the first [claimed second ultrasound array] bi-plane transducer which is an additional 30-60 degrees from the first transducers 30-60 degrees not the horizontal, i.e. 60-120 degrees as also explained in e.g. [0108]).
Zhu modified by Corbett discloses the claimed invention except wherein the second ultrasound array is angled between 115-125 degrees from the ultrasound array. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the arrays at particular angles as taught by Flesch, since no criticality is given for the claimed range and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 10 as stated above. Zhu fails to explicitly discloses wherein the first ultrasound array is angled between 60-105 degrees from the longitudinal axis.
However, Flesch teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the first ultrasound array is angled between 60-105 degrees from the longitudinal axis, (“the bi-plane transducer is mounted on the probe at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the probe [...] a first [said bi-plane transducer and a second said bi-plane transducer mounted in the vicinity of the first said bi-plane transducer, and the second bi-plane transducer is rotated with respect to the second bi-plane array transducer through an angle of between 30 and 60 degrees.” [0043]-[0043]; examiner notes that the second bi-plane array transducer can be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from the first bi-plane transducer which is an additional 30-60 degrees from the first transducers 30-60 degrees not the horizontal, i.e. 60-120 degrees as also explained in e.g. [0108]).
Zhu modified by Corbett discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first ultrasound array is angled between 60-105 degrees from the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dispose the array at a particular angle from the longitudinal axis as taught by Flesch, since no criticality is given for the claimed range it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Zhu further discloses wherein the first array is oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis (“the plurality of transducers 104 are located proximate to the second end 106b of each of the plurality of finger sheaths 106 and are configured to fire and receive ultrasonic waves in an end firing orientation, as depicted in FIG. 1B and 3B.” [0024]; also see Figs. 1b and 3b and corresponding descriptions).
Zhu fails to disclose the second array oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis.
However, Corbett further teaches, in the same field of endeavor, the second array oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis (see transverse element 24 in Fig. 7 and corresponding description).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with the second array oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis as taught by Corbett in order to allow unskilled users to perform FAST scan with simplified use and training through more natural positions ([0021]-[0022] of Corbett).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Rubin, Shai, Corbett, and Flesch as applied to claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 above and further in view of Nygaard et al. (US 2009/0171218, July 2, 2009, hereinafter “Nygaard”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Zhu modified by Corbett and Flesch discloses the limitations of claims 4 and 12, respectively, as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the ultrasound array and second ultrasound array are oriented to have a same scan plane.
However, Nygaard teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the ultrasound array and second ultrasound array are oriented to have a same scan plane (“The arrays or array provide(s) an imaging plane coinciding with the longitudinal axis 102 and transverse axis 103 i.e. the axes lies in the imaging plane. For medical uses, this imaging plane is also denoted a sagittal imaging plane [...] The transducer arrays 104a,104b [first and second arrays] are shaped so as to provide a desired field of view in the sagittal imaging plane.” [0040]-[0041]).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with wherein the ultrasound array and second ultrasound array are oriented to have a same scan plane as taught by Nygaard in order to provide a desired field of view ([0041] of Nygaard).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Rubin, Shai, and Corbett as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Sliwa (US 2009/0163807, June 25, 2009).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively, as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the finger-receiving aperture comprises a finger-retention element.
However, Sliwa teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the finger-receiving aperture (mounting body 12 in Fig. 3, re-produced below, and corresponding description) comprises a finger-retention element (band 17 in Fig. 3 and corresponding description, e.g. “a band 17 that may bridge the partial cylinder and be configured to retain mounting body 12 on a finger.” [0018]).
PNG
media_image2.png
232
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with wherein the finger-receiving aperture comprises a finger-retention element as taught by Sliwa in order to secure the device to the finger ([0018] of Sliwa).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Rubin, Shai, and Corbett as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and further in view of Takano et al. (US 4,898,177, February 6, 1990, hereinafter “Takano”).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 17-18, Zhu modified by Rubin, Shai, and Corbett discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10, respectively, as stated above but fails to disclose wherein the housing further comprises a left side and a right side, and wherein the left and right sides each comprises a gripping element, wherein the gripping elements are positioned adjacent the distal end.
However, Takano teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the housing (adapter 50 in Fig. 3, re-produced below with annotations, and corresponding description) further comprises a left side and a right side (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein the left and right sides each comprises a gripping element (grip portions 52 in Fig. 3 and corresponding description), wherein the gripping elements are positioned adjacent the distal end (e.g. see Figs. 3 and 8 and corresponding description).
PNG
media_image3.png
322
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Zhu with wherein the housing further comprises a left side and a right side, and wherein the left and right sides each comprises a gripping element, wherein the gripping elements are positioned adjacent the distal end as taught by Takano in order to allow a user to hold the device with a relatively large number of support points (col. 8, ll. 47-62 of Takano).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797