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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “each at least one self-connecting reconnecting transducer” in line 2 contains a grammatical error. Appropriate correction is required. For example, the phrase may be amended to “the at least one self-connecting transducer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, recites “backing material” in line 13 and further recites “at least one backing layer” in line 16. It is unclear whether the limitation “at least one backing layer” is the same as the previously recited “backing material”, a different structure, or includes the previously recited “backing material” as a component thereof. As such, the relationship between these elements is ambiguous, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, and the claim is indefinite. Claim further recites “excessive deformation force” in lines 19 and 23 where the term excessive is a relative term, and the scope of the limitation can’t be determined with reasonable certainty, and the claim is indefinite as thereof.
Regarding claim 4, recites “at least one self-reconnecting transducers” in lines 1-2. Where, claim 4 depends on claim 1, which recites “at least one ultrasound transducer” in lines 8,11, 15, 20 and 23, while claim 4 appears to refer to plural transducers and /or may be intended to refer to the array of transducers recites in claim 2, line 2. Therefore, it is unclear whether the recited “at least one self-reconnecting transducers” refers to the “at least one ultrasound transducer” of claim 1, the array of transducers of claim 2, or an additional structure. Accordingly, the scope of claim 4 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 21, recites “flexible material configured to reconnect the least one self-reconnecting transducer”. It is unclear how the flexible material is configured to perform this reconnection. The claim does not specify how such configuration enables or assists in reconnecting the at least one self-reconnecting transducer. It is further unclear whether the flexible material itself performs the reconnection, facilities the reconnection, or merely supports another component that performs the reconnection. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and is indefinite. Although the specification appears to describe reconnection as occurring when elastic forces of flexible material reposition the transducer assembly after removal of a deformation force (specification para. [0097]), claim 21 does not recite this relationship or otherwise identify how the flexible material causes the reconnection of the transducer.
Claims 2, 5, and 10 depends on rejected claim 1. Claim 3 depends on rejected claim 2. Claims 6,7, and 8 depend on rejected claim 5. Claim 11 depends on rejected claim 10. Claims 13,14, and 15 depend on rejected claim 11. Therefore, claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims dependent therefore would be allowable if amended to overcome the noted 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues and informalities.
Scurtescu et al (US10595960) teaches an intra oral ultrasound device having at least one ultrasound transducer (23 or 24), for emitting at least one ultrasound emission (abstract lines 3-4), the ultrasound transducer having at least a front surface and a back surface (as in Figure 5C)
a printed circuit board (element 2, the flexible printed circuit board containing flexible cable 37), a flexible electrical connection between the at least one ultrasound transducer and the printed circuit board (circuit board connected to transducers 23 and 24, as in Figures 8, 9),
at least one electrode (39, as in figure 6C and 7A) operably connected to the at least one ultrasound transducer (connected to transducer 24), the at least one electrode mounted to a flexible circuit board element extending between the front surface and the rear surface of the ultrasound transducer (the connection of the circuit wires, 38, and electrodes 39, and transducer 24 connected as in Figure 7A), electrically connecting the at least one ultrasound transducer and the reconnectable flexible electrical connection (switching circuitry, 16), and at least one transducer, backing material (air or impendence material 34), operably connecting the at least one transducer and the printed circuit board (as in Figure 6C),
wherein the at least one ultrasound transducer, the reconnectable flexible electrical connection, the at least one backing layer (please refer to the section 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), and the at least one electrode mounted to the flexible circuit board element are entire apparatus is encapsulated within a housing formed of flexible material (25, flexible enclosure, these connections seen in fig 6C as all the elements enclosed),
at least one ultrasound transducer, the reconnectable flexible electrical connection, and the at least one electrode mounted to the flexible circuit board temporarily disconnect electrically, and, the at least one ultrasound transducer, the reconnectable flexible electrical connection (column 22, lines 55-67 and column 23, lines 1-9, teaches how the sensor signals from the transducer can be used for switching on and off the electric connection due to changes the impedance layer or air changes to send a signal to the switch, similar to this self-automated process).
However, does not teach wherein, when an excessive deformation force (please refer to the section 35 U.S.C. 112(b)) is applied to the flexible housing material the electrical circuit the circuit board disconnects and, when the excessive deformation force to the flexible housing material is removed, and the at least one electrode mounted to the flexible circuit board element self-reconnect electrically.
Swett et al (US 8970093) teaches a transducer that sense the impedance differences and the affecting mechanical force on diaphragm affecting the piezoelectric element which causes the transducer to send signals to the circuitry (column 4, lines 5-11). This fluid-based transducer mechanism is for drilling detection fluid rather than human body (intra cavity) fluid. Therefore, is not an obvious combination.
The limitation of electric disconnecting and reconnecting behavior based on mechanical based (force detection) transducer due to an impedance differences caused in intra oral cavities therefore is not disclosed by prior art and appear to distinguish the claimed invention therefrom.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARA N. SAMARASEKARA whose telephone number is (571)272-9653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/SARA N SAMARASEKARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights