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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Priority
The instant Application was filed 21 January 2022. No priority is claimed herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 21 January 2022 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite, a method, system (respectively) of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor wherein the claims fail to include any components directed to implementing a generation of feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor as stated in the preamble. As such, the claims are unclear with respect to this claim element and clarification is requested.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, a point cache operable to store one or more points… selecting an optimized point from the point stack, wherein there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the point stack” as the claim fails to recite said element in previous claim steps. Rather, the previous claim steps recite only “point cache” and it is unclear if the “point cache” and “point stack” are one in the same. Clarification is requested.
Dependent claims as recited herein fail to remedy the above rejections and are also rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite, “a computer readable medium”. Therefore the claims which read on transitory propagating signals and are not proper patentable subject matter because they do not fit within any of the four statutory categories of invention (In re Nuijten, Federal. Circuit, 2006). It is noted that the recitation of a "non-transitory computer-readable medium" would overcome the rejection with respect to claims 19-20 herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-6, 10-15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (“An Auto TCD Probe Design and Visualization” in Brain Informatics, International Conference, B1 2018, Arlington, TX, December 7-9, 2018, eds. Wang et al.; pp. 486-495).
Claim 1 is directed to:
A method of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising [Huang et al. disclose a Transcranial Doppler (TCD) system and auto sensor probe; p. 487]:
scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold [Huang et al. disclose a first central point is determined during scanning as described at p. 488, section 2.2]
obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure [Huang et al. disclose signal assessment of first waves from ultrasound (US) at p. 488-489];
obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure (Huang et al. disclose after the global search for the area of the Circle of Willis at a certain depth, the closest point in the space can be found by using k-nearest neighbor search (KNN) algorithm, which is an optimization method to find the nearest point in the scale space; p. 488, 489);
storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold (Huang et al. disclose “point 3813 is result obtained from which coordinate point further used”; p. 489);
modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack (Huang et al. disclose a “local search is performed after the global search, which helps to improve the accuracy of searching outputs. From the global search, the coordinate point of the 3813th detected signal…; Figure 2”; p. 489); and
actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point (Huang et al. disclose “this study proposed and developed an auto TCD probe, which can search and find the right direction automatically. In the designing, the signal scanning range is a critical factor to accuracy. For the sampling depth of ultrasound waves, 2 MHz ultrasound probe can transmit the ultrasound waves over 80 mm, which is suitable for scanning one side of cerebral arteries”; p.495).
Further with respect to claims 10 and 19, Huang et al. disclose the system and instructions for performing the method as above (abstract; p. 487; p. 495).
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Huang et al. disclose second sampling depths that include a global and local granularity at p. 490, 2.4.
With respect to claims 3-4 and 12-13, Huang et al. disclose first thresholds that apply to metrics associated with position and depth of the scan position with respect to anatomical structures at pp. 488-490 and Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to claims 5 and 14, Huang et al. disclose TCD at p. 486, abstract).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, Huang et al. disclose cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) and vessel pulsatility at p. 486, abstract).
With respect to claim 20, Huang et al. disclose first thresholds that apply to metrics associated with position and depth of the scan position with respect to anatomical structures at pp. 488-490 and Figures 1 and 2; TCD at p. 486, abstract; and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) and vessel pulsatility at p. 486, abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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.
1. Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“An Auto TCD Probe Design and Visualization” in Brain Informatics, International Conference, B1 2018, Arlington, TX, December 7-9, 2018, eds. Wang et al.; pp. 486-495), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above and in view of US2024/0252762 to Nisha et al. (EFD to 17 August 2016).
Claim 1 is directed to:
A method of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising [Huang et al. disclose a Transcranial Doppler (TCD) system and auto sensor probe; p. 487]:
scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold [Huang et al. disclose a first central point is determined during scanning as described at p. 488, section 2.2]
obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure [Huang et al. disclose signal assessment of first waves from ultrasound (US) at p. 488-489];
obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure (Huang et al. disclose after the global search for the area of the Circle of Willis at a certain depth, the closest point in the space can be found by using k-nearest neighbor search (KNN) algorithm, which is an optimization method to find the nearest point in the scale space; p. 488, 489);
storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold (Huang et al. disclose “point 3813 is result obtained from which coordinate point further used”; p. 489);
modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack (Huang et al. disclose a “local search is performed after the global search, which helps to improve the accuracy of searching outputs. From the global search, the coordinate point of the 3813th detected signal…; Figure 2”; p. 489); and
actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point (Huang et al. disclose “this study proposed and developed an auto TCD probe, which can search and find the right direction automatically. In the designing, the signal scanning range is a critical factor to accuracy. For the sampling depth of ultrasound waves, 2 MHz ultrasound probe can transmit the ultrasound waves over 80 mm, which is suitable for scanning one side of cerebral arteries”; p.495).
Further with respect to claim 10, Huang et al. disclose the system and instructions for performing the method as above (abstract; p. 487; p. 495).
Huang et al. do not specifically disclose step directed to further getting feedback from an injection kit that includes magnitude of pressure applied to the injector as in claims 7-9 and 16-18. However, the prior art to Nisha et al. disclose a syringe use monitoring device attached to a syringe for detection of medication and further for measurement of force applied to the plunger to monitor medication delivery and display said indications (abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a syringe system as described in Nisha et al. with the scanning probe devices of the TCD system disclosed in Huang et al. because Nisha et al. provide that the focus of the present invention is an integrated system that can detect what medication is about to be filled and then detect the dispensing of that medication from the syringe as well as the manner of that dispensing [0021]. Further, Nisha provide that there are advantages for such systems including, that the syringe monitoring system is the prevention of medication errors via a system of alerts and confirmations to the user [0021]. As such, use of said system with that of Huang et al. in an scanning environment or operating room, for example would be advantageous for precise and error free application of medications or other agents, as needed, and is further motivated by Nisha et al. as such in disclosure of an integrated system (see, for example, [0044] of Nisha et al.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,417. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a method, system and computer-readable medium of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising: scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold; obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure; obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure; storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold; modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack; and actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point. Claims of the ‘417 patent are directed to a tool, a method and CRM for acquiring and optimizing a signal from a subject by a robotic device, comprising registering, by the robotic device, a transducer configured to transmit acoustic energy and receive the acoustic energy as the signal, with respect to the subject; moving, by the robotic device, the transducer to a coordinate location of a first seed point of one or more seed points stored in a database, each of the seed points corresponding to a different coordinate location on a surface of a body of the subject and previously identified as having a relatively high probability of detection of a relatively high energy level of the signal based on one or more prior scanned subjects; and transmitting the acoustic energy, by the transducer, at or around the coordinate location of the first seed point by following a first predefined search path along the surface of the body of the subject to search for an energy level of the signal above a first threshold. Said tool further includes the robotic device to move the transducer to a coordinate location of a second seed point of the seed points at the surface of the body of the subject, the coordinate location of the second seed point different from the coordinate location of the first seed point; and the transducer to scan at or around the coordinate location of the second seed point by following the first predefined search path along the surface of the body of the subject to search for an energy level of the signal above the first threshold. As such, the claims are directed to obvious variants one of the other and in view of dependent claims as recited.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,090,026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a method, system and computer-readable medium of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising: scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold; obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure; obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure; storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold; modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack; and actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point. Claims of the ‘026 patent are directed to a method and system for determining, by a computing system, a first location of the transducer with respect to a blood vessel of the subject, the robotic system configured to position the transducer to the first location;
receiving, by the computing system, a first signal from the transducer at the first location in response to the transducer transmitting acoustic energy towards the blood vessel;
analyzing, by the computing system, the received first signal to determine a first parameter of blood flow in the blood vessel; determining, by the computing system based on the first parameter and a step size, a second location of the transducer with respect to the blood vessel; moving, by the robotic system, the transducer to the second location with respect to the blood vessel; and determining, by the computing system, the neurological condition of the subject based at least in part on the first parameter of the blood flow in the blood vessel. As such, the claims are directed to obvious variants one of the other and in view of dependent claims as recited.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,154,273. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a method, system and computer-readable medium of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising: scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold; obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure; obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure; storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold; modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack; and actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point. Claims of the ‘273 patent are directed to a method, tool and CRM for moving a probe, by a robot connected to the probe, to a first position at a body of the subject adjacent the section of the vasculature; transmitting, by the probe, a first ultrasound beam into a first portion of the section of the vasculature through the body of the subject, the first ultrasound beam simultaneously insonating a first plurality of depths; receiving first ultrasound data including at least one imaging parameter of the first portion simultaneously from one or more of the first plurality of depths of the first ultrasound beam; moving the probe, by the robot connected to the probe, to a second position at the body of the subject adjacent the section of the vasculature, the second position different from the first position; transmitting, by the probe, a second ultrasound beam into a second portion of the section of the vasculature through the body of the subject, the second ultrasound beam simultaneously insonating a second plurality of depths; receiving second ultrasound data including the at least one imaging parameter of the second portion based on the second ultrasound beam; tracking positional information of the probe; determining that ultrasound data acquired is enough for constructing a map of the section of the vasculature, wherein the ultrasound data comprises the first ultrasound data and the second ultrasound data; and in response to determining that the ultrasound data acquired is enough for constructing the map, constructing the map of the section of the vasculature based on the first ultrasound data and the second ultrasound data, wherein constructing the map comprises aligning the first ultrasound data and the second ultrasound data with the positional information of the probe based on the first plurality of depths and the second plurality of depths. As such, the claims are directed to obvious variants one of the other and in view of dependent claims as recited.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,154,273. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a method, system and computer-readable medium of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising: scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold; obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure; obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure; storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold; modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack; and actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point. Claims of the ‘278 patent are directed to a method, CRM and tool receiving first ultrasound data including at least one imaging parameter of a first portion of a vasculature of a subject based on a first ultrasound beam, wherein the first ultrasound beam is transmitted by a probe at a first position relative to a body of the subject; receiving second ultrasound data including the at least one imaging parameter of a second portion of the vasculature based on a second ultrasound beam, wherein the first ultrasound beam is transmitted by the probe at a second position relative to the body of the subject; determining that ultrasound data acquired is enough for constructing a map of the vasculature, wherein the ultrasound data comprises the first ultrasound data and the second ultrasound data; and in response to determining that the ultrasound data acquired is enough for constructing the map, constructing the map of the vasculature based at least in part on the first position, the second position, the first ultrasound data, and the second ultrasound data. As such, the claims are directed to obvious variants one of the other and in view of dependent claims as recited.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,004,906. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a method, system and computer-readable medium of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising: scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold; obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure; obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure; storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold; modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack; and actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point. Claims of the ‘906 patent are directed to a system, method and CRM a probe; a robotic system configured to move the probe; at least one processing circuit configured to: control the robotic system to move the probe to a first position, the robotic system providing a first robotic time stamp when the probe is moved to the first position; receive first ultrasound data of a subject collected by the probe at the first position, the first ultrasound data collected by the probe at the first position at a plurality of first depths in the subject, the first ultrasound data comprising a first ultrasound time stamp; match the first robotic time stamp to the first ultrasound time stamp; determine a second position based on the first ultrasound data; control the robotic system to move the probe to the second position, the robotic system providing a second robotic time stamp when the probe is moved to the second position; receive second ultrasound data of the subject collected by the probe at the second position, the second ultrasound data collected by the probe at the second position at a plurality of second depths in the subject, the second ultrasound data comprising a second ultrasound time stamp; match the second robotic time stamp to the second ultrasound time stamp; and determine a vascular map using the first ultrasound data, the first position, the plurality of first depths, the matching of the first robotic time stamp to the first ultrasound time stamp, the second ultrasound data, the second position, the plurality of second depths, and the matching of the second robotic time stamp to the second ultrasound time stamp. As such, the claims are directed to obvious variants one of the other and in view of dependent claims as recited.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,097,073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are directed to a method, system and computer-readable medium of calibrating orientation of a cerebral sensor and generating feedback from an injector for a cerebral sensor, the method comprising: scanning an anatomical structure, by a cerebral sensor, proximate to the scan position and satisfying a first threshold; obtaining at least one cranial signal from the cerebral sensor in accordance with a first pathway over the anatomical structure; obtaining from the cranial signal a point corresponding to the anatomical structure; storing the obtained point to a point cache operable to store one or more points, in response to a determination that the point satisfies a second threshold; modifying the first pathway for actuating the cerebral sensor, in response to the determination that the obtained point satisfies the second threshold; selecting an optimized point from the point stack; and actuating the cerebral sensor based on the optimized point. Claims of the ‘073 patent are directed to a method, CRM and system for determining, by a computing system, a first location of the transducer with respect to the blood vessel of the subject, the robotic system configured to position the transducer to the first location;
receiving, by the computing system, a first signal from the transducer at the first location in response to the transducer transmitting acoustic energy towards the blood vessel; analyzing, by the computing system, the received first signal to determine a first parameter of blood flow in the blood vessel; determining an error estimate using the first parameter; determining a step size using the error estimate, wherein the step size varies based on the error estimate; determining, by the computing system based on the first signal and the step size, a second location of the transducer with respect to the blood vessel; moving, by the robotic system, the transducer to the second location with respect to the blood vessel; receiving, by the computing system, a second signal from the blood vessel in response to the transducer transmitting the acoustic energy towards the blood vessel; and creating, by the computing system, a mapped image of the blood vessel based on the first signal and the second signal. As such, the claims are directed to obvious variants one of the other and in view of dependent claims as recited.
Prior Art Made of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Clare et al. (Scientific Reports (2022) Vol. 12:6 pages) disclosing the NovaGuide Intelligent Ultrasound system for TCD.
2. Khan et al. (Neurotrauma Reports (2020) Vol. 1:14 pages) disclosing a robotic semi-automated TCD assessment in post-concussion syndrome.
3. 2021/0100525 (Hamilton et al./Neurasignal) disclosing a waveform visualization tool in TCD applications.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 1-18 are eligible under 35 USC 101 (eligibility) as the claims provide a practical application wherein the cerebral sensor is actuated based on an optimized point.
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting following form via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300): PTO/SB/439. Applicant is encouraged to do so as early in prosecution as possible, so as to facilitate communication during examination.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Inquiries
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 12:00PM to 10:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687