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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-18 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the claim limitation that a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface in claims 1 and 9 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification (see par. [0091] of the Pg Pub. version of the specification) discloses that the distal end surface of ultrasound transducer 11a is formed of convex curved surface, however, the specification does not explicitly that the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface.
Claims 2-7, 10-15, and 17-18 are rejected because they depends from rejected claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (WO 00/25297; hereinafter White), in view of Omura et al. (US 6,689,066), in view of Fujimura (US 2017/0144194).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses an ultrasonic transducer having a tiled support. White shows a diagnostic imaging catheter (see abstract) comprising: a sheath (see 120 in fig. 5) configured to be inserted into a living body (see fig. 5; page 9, lines 28-31); a drive shaft (see 92 in fig. 4A) rotatable in the sheath (see page 3, lines 18-21, page 8, lines 9-10); and an imaging core (see 80 in fig. 4A) portion attached to the drive shaft in the sheath (page 7, lines 11), wherein the imaging core portion includes: an ultrasound transducer capable of transmitting and receiving ultrasound on an ultrasound transmission and reception surface of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 2B and 4A; abstract); and a housing holding the ultrasound transducer (see 82 in fig. 4A; page 7, lines 11-12), the housing including a support surface that faces a radial direction of the sheath (see fig. 4A, the examiner has interpreted the bottom inner surface of receptacle 90 at the distal end 84 of housing 82 as the support surface) and supports the ultrasound transducer (fig. 4A, shows the bottom inner surface of receptacle 90 at the distal end 84 of housing 82 supports the transmission and reception member), the housing including an inclined surface that is inclined (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88 and axially overlaps the transmission and reception member which includes elements 44 and 46), up to a distal end of the housing (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88 and axially overlaps the transmission and reception member which includes elements 44 and 46), to approach a central axis line of the drive shaft from a proximal side to a distal side of the inclined surface (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88), and the inclined surface axially overlaps with a distal end of the support surface from a proximal side of the distal end of the support surface to a distal side of the distal end of the support surface (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88 and axially overlaps the support surface).
Furthermore, White shows a bottom surface of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 4A), the bottom surface being opposite the ultrasound transmission and reception surface (fig. 4A shows that the bottom surface is opposite the ultrasound transmission and reception surface 66), the ultrasound transducer comprises a piezoelectric element (see 44 in fig. 4A) disposed between a support member (see 46 in fig. 4A) and an acoustic matching member (see 42 in fig. 4A), but fails to explicitly state that the bottom surface of the ultrasound transducer by contact of the support surface with the bottom surface, and a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface.
Omura discloses an ultrasound probe with house. Omura teaches that the bottom surface of the transmission and reception member is supported by the support surface of the housing via a contact of the surface with the bottom surface (see col. 3, lines 35-38; fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the bottom surface of the transmission and reception member by contact of the support surface with the bottom surface in the invention of White, as taught by Omura, to be able to better secure the transducer device by bonding the transducer to the bottom surface of the housing.
But, White and Omura fail to explicitly state a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface.
Fujimura discloses an ultrasound transducer. Fujimura teaches a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface (see par. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface in the invention of White and Omura, as taught by Fujimura, to provide a wide view imaging with better resolution.
Regarding claim 2, White shows in an upper side view of the housing as viewed from a support surface side, the inclined surface located on at least one side of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 3, White shows wherein the inclined surface is behind the support surface (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 4, White shows wherein in the side surface of the housing, behind the support surface, a peripheral surface extends along an inner peripheral surface of the sheath (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7, White shows wherein an angle of the inclined portion with respect to the central axis line increases toward the distal side of the distal end (fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 9, White discloses an ultrasonic transducer having a tiled support. White shows inserting a sheath of a diagnostic imaging catheter into a living body (see abstract; fig. 4A); and rotating a drive shaft of the diagnostic imaging catheter in the sheath to rotate an imaging core portion of the diagnostic imaging catheter that is attached to the drive shaft in the sheath (line page 3, lines 15-21; see fig. 4A), wherein the imaging core portion includes: an ultrasound transducer capable of transmitting and receiving ultrasound on an ultrasound transmission and surface of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 2B and 4A); and a housing holding the ultrasound transducer (see 82 in fig. 4A; page 7, lines 11-12), the housing including a support surface that faces a radial direction of the sheath (see fig. 4A, the examiner has interpreted the bottom inner surface of receptacle 90 at the distal end 84 of housing 82 as the support surface) and supports the transmission and reception member (fig. 4A, shows the bottom inner surface of receptacle 90 at the distal end 84 of housing 82 supports the transmission and reception member), the housing including an inclined surface that is inclined (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88 and axially overlaps the transmission and reception member which includes elements 44 and 46), up to a distal end of the housing (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88 and axially overlaps the transmission and reception member which includes elements 44 and 46), to approach a central axis line of the drive shaft from a proximal side to a distal side of the inclined surface (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88), and the inclined surface axially overlaps with a distal end of the support surface from a proximal side of the distal end of the support surface to a distal side of the distal end of the support surface (fig. 4A shows that the inclined surface from the bottom of receptacle 90 at central axis 62 and extends to longitudinal axis 88 and axially overlaps the support surface).
Furthermore, White shows a bottom surface of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 4A), the bottom surface being opposite the ultrasound transmission and reception surface (fig. 4A shows that the bottom surface is opposite the ultrasound transmission and reception surface 66), the ultrasound transducer comprises a piezoelectric element (see 44 in fig. 4A) disposed between a support member (see 46 in fig. 4A) and an acoustic matching member (see 42 in fig. 4A), but fails to explicitly state that the bottom surface of the ultrasound transducer by contact of the support surface with the bottom surface, and a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface.
Omura discloses an ultrasound probe with house. Omura teaches that the bottom surface of the transmission and reception member is supported by the support surface of the housing via a contact of the surface with the bottom surface (see col. 3, lines 35-38; fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of that the bottom surface of the transmission and reception member by contact of the support surface with the bottom surface in the invention of White, as taught by Omura, to be able to better secure the transducer device by bonding the transducer to the bottom surface of the housing.
But, White and Omura fail to explicitly state a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface.
Fujimura discloses an ultrasound transducer. Fujimura teaches a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface (see par. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a distal end surface of the piezoelectric element is formed of a convex curved surface in the invention of White and Omura, as taught by Fujimura, to provide a wide view imaging with better resolution.
Regarding claim 10, White shows in an upper side view of the housing as viewed from a support surface side, the inclined surface is located on at least one side of the transmission and reception member (see fig. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 11, White shows the inclined surface is the support surface.
Regarding claim 12, White shows wherein the housing further includes, behind the support surface, a peripheral surface that extends along an inner peripheral surface of the sheath (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 15, White shows wherein an angle of the inclined surface with respect to the central axis line increases toward the distal side of the distal end (fig. 4A).
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (WO 00/25297; hereinafter White), in view of Omura et al. (US 6,689,066), in view of Fujimura (US 2017/0144194) as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Itou et al. (US 2013/0331820; hereinafter Itou).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, White, Omura and Fujimura disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection, but fails to explicitly state wherein a proximal protrusion portion protruding toward an inner surface of the sheath from the ultrasound transducer supported by the support surface is provided on a proximal side of the support surface.
Itou discloses an ultrasound catheter system. Itou teaches a proximal protrusion portion protruding toward an inner surface of the sheath from the ultrasound transducer supported by the support surface is provided on a proximal side of the support surface (see fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a proximal protrusion portion protruding toward an inner surface of the sheath from the ultrasound transducer supported by the support surface is provided on a proximal side of the support surface in the invention of White, Omura and Fujimura, as taught by Itou, to provide a better housing which can be used for convex ultrasound transducer to provide a wide view imaging with better resolution.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, White, Omura, Fujimura and Itou disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Itou teaches wherein a distal protrusion portion protruding toward an inner surface of the sheath from the ultrasound transducer supported by the support surface is provided on a distal side of the support surface (see fig. 2).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (WO 00/25297; hereinafter White), in view of Omura et al. (US 6,689,066), in view of Fujimura (US 2017/0144194) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Stigall et al. (US 2019/0053782; hereinafter Stigall).
Regarding claim 17, White, Omura and Fujimura disclose the claim invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore White shows that the support surface comprises a bottom surface of a recess in the housing (see fig. 4A; the transducer elements are placed in the recess), but fails to explicitly state a through-hole in the housing penetrating to outside is from in a vicinity of the bottom surface of the recess.
Stigall discloses an ultrasound device. Stigall teaches a through-hole in the housing penetrating to outside is from in a vicinity of the bottom surface of the recess (see 242 in fig. 6; par. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a through-hole in the housing penetrating to outside is from in a vicinity of the bottom surface of the recess in the invention of White, Omura and Fujimura, to provide proper space to place backing material and other component of the ultrasound transducer.
Regarding claim 18, White, Omura and Fujimura disclose the claim invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore White shows that the support surface comprises a bottom surface of a recess in the housing (see fig. 4A; the transducer elements are placed in the recess), but fails to explicitly state a through-hole in the housing penetrating to outside is from in a vicinity of the bottom surface of the recess.
Stigall discloses an ultrasound device. Stigall teaches a through-hole in the housing penetrating to outside is from in a vicinity of the bottom surface of the recess (see 242 in fig. 6; par. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a through-hole in the housing penetrating to outside is from in a vicinity of the bottom surface of the recess in the invention of White, Omura and Fujimura, as taught by Stigall to provide proper space to place backing material and other component of the ultrasound transducer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/07/2025 with respect to prior art rejection of claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior arts Fujimura for claims 1 and 9. Furtehrmore, the examiner notes that prior art White does show an ultrasound transducer capable of transmitting and receiving ultrasound on an ultrasound transmission and reception surface of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 2B and 4A; abstract); and a housing holding the ultrasound transducer (see 82 in fig. 4A; page 7, lines 11-12), a bottom surface of the ultrasound transducer (see fig. 4A), the bottom surface being opposite the ultrasound transmission and reception surface (fig. 4A shows that the bottom surface is opposite the ultrasound transmission and reception surface 66), the ultrasound transducer comprises a piezoelectric element (see 44 in fig. 4A) disposed between a support member (see 46 in fig. 4A) and an acoustic matching member (see 42 in fig. 4A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797