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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 14, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, and 18 have been amended, claims 5, 11-14, and 16-17 have been cancelled, and claims 19-23 have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-10, 15 and 18-23 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 9, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 14, 2026, with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that attempts to reach Applicant to resolve the remaining issues were unsuccessful.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 15 and 18, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on June 25, 2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim should be amended to recite “wherein the ultrasound-based signal[[s]]” in line 6 since the ultrasound-based signal was previously introduced and for consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 15, the claim should be amended to recite “transmitting the ultrasound-based signal” in line 6, “displaying on the display screen” in line 17, and “displaying the light or providing the audio signal” in line 19 since these elements were previously introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim should be amended to recite “the at least two detector portions” in line 3 for consistent claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recites “the power activated ultrasound-based transmitter transmitting transmits the ultrasound signal”. It is unclear if this limitation is drawn to merely to a transmitter with a structure capable of performing these method steps or if it further includes a method comprising these steps. As per MPEP 2173.05(p)(ll), a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. It is not clear if the claims are drawn only to structures that are capable of performing the method steps or if the claims are intended to be written as method steps. For the sake of examination, the claim is interpreted to mean the transmitter is configured to transmit the signal.
Further regarding claim 21, The term “optimum” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the what would be considered an “optimum” amount of power would be dependent on a numerous amount of variables (e.g. type/duration of the procedure, patient parameters, desired outcome, etc…) so that PHOSITA would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim. It is recommended to remove the term from the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 15, 18-20, 22, and 23 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims in this application are allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose either singly or in combination the claimed nasogastric tube positioning system.
The closest prior art of record is Sutaria (US 20180078195).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sutaria fails to teach among all the limitations or render obvious a power activated ultrasound-based transmitter to transmit an ultrasound-based signal, in combination with the total structure and function as claimed. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection, Sutaria teaches a transducer part (acoustic sensor 104 in fig. 6) which is located at the second end of a nasogastric tube (feeding tube 102 in fig. 6). However, Sutaria discloses that this part receive an ultrasound-based signal (paragraph 123) and does not teach or disclose that this part can transmit an ultrasound-based signal, as required by the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bjurbo (US 20220032010) discloses a nasogastric tube (catheter 50 in fig. 1) comprising a power activated ultrasound-based transmitter located at the second end of the tube (ultrasound transducer 46 in fig. 1; paragraph 45).
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 COURTNEY FREDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9 AM - 5 PM 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, BHISMA MEHTA can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
