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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/25/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to U.S. Provisional App. No. 62/941,435 filed November 27, 2019.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on 07/25/2025. Claims 3 and 12 were previously cancelled. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-24 are presently pending in this application.
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 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parchak (US 20080306380) in view of Marshall (US 20090275838), Aoki (JP-2000245734; the provided translation of JP-2000245734 is relied up by reference herein), and Palomar (Non-Patent Literature: Palomar Engineers webpage, Slip On Ferrite Beads. August 17, 2017. Accessed via The Wayback Machine, retrieved on November 19, 2024).
Regarding claim 11, Parchak teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraphs [0032] and [0033]; Catheter #22, Fig. 1), comprising:
an elongate shaft sized (Paragraph [0032]; comprises an insertion tube) and configured to be advanced within a patient (Paragraphs [0031] and [0032]; inserting and manipulating the catheter within the patient's body; whose distal end #34 is designed to be passed through the vascular system and into a chamber of the heart);
a handle adjacent the elongate shaft sized (Paragraphs [0031] and [0040];connector assembly #28) and positioned to remain outside of the patient (Paragraph [0031]; The connector assembly may also serve as a handle, for use by a practitioner in inserting and manipulating the catheter within the patient's body), the handle including an outer surface (Paragraphs [0039] and [0040]; Cover #48, Fig. 4) configured to be gripped by a user (Paragraph [0040]; cover #48 of connector assembly #28 can be used conveniently by the operator of system #20 as a handle for catheter #22);
a distal tip including an ultrasound transducer (Paragraphs [0033], [0042], and [0045]; Distal end #34 of catheter #22 may also comprise one or more functional elements... For example an ultrasound transducer; Sensor #36; Examples of such sensors may include… ultrasonic transducers);
an elongate cable bundle in communication with the ultrasound transducer (Paragraph [0042]; cables #64, Coil wires #62; Fig. 7 shows the wires in communication with the sensor #36), the elongate cable bundle passing proximally through the elongate shaft and extending into the handle (Paragraph [0042]; connected via cables #64 running through catheter #22) comprising an electrical noise suppression member (Paragraph [0036]; A Mu-metal shield #46, Figs. 4 and 7; Paragraph [0036]; a shell #48 slides over and covers the shield, resulting in the appearance shown in FIG. 3),
and wherein a shield layer of the cable (Paragraph [0042]; Typically, cables #64 comprise shields #70, Fig. 7) is removed from the cable bundle within the handle (Fig. 7 shows the shield layer is removed within the handle portion of the catheter).
Parchak does not teach the electrical noise suppression member is configured to provide between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz; and the elongate cable bundle is folded upon itself in a folded region within the handle and the shield layer is removed from the cable bundle before the folded region such that the shield layer is not disposed in the folded region.
Marshall, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraph [0005]; a catheter assembly for an intravascular ultrasound system), comprising: an electrical noise suppression member (Paragraph [0055]; shield-coupling capacitor 406) providing between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz (Paragraph [0055]; IVUS imaging system 100 operates within a frequency range of 5 MHz to 60 MHz; an impedance range of 30 Ω to 354 Ω).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the noise suppression member of Parchak to have provided an impedance anywhere in the range of 30 Ω to 354 Ω for an operating range between 5 MHz to 60 MHz, including an impedance between 90 ohms and 102 ohms at a frequency in the range 5 MHz to 10 MHz, as taught by Marshall because it would have been a known and predictable solution for decreasing electrical noise in the operating ranges of the IVUS imaging system, and provide patient safety from leakage current (Marshall, Paragraphs [0055] and [0071]).
The device of Parchak in view of Marshall does not explicitly teach the elongate cable bundle is folded upon itself in a folded region within the handle and the shield layer is removed from the cable bundle before the folded region such that the shield layer is not disposed in the folded region.
Aoki, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0009]; ultrasonic endoscope diagnostic apparatus, Fig. 1 #1), comprising: an elongate shaft (Pg. 3; elongated insertion portion, Fig. 1 #2a) sized and configured to be advanced within a patient (Pg. 1 and 3; internal organs in the body cavity; inserted into a body cavity); a handle (Pg. 3; ultrasonic connector, Fig. 1 #8) sized and positioned to remain outside of the patient (Pg. 5; the ultrasonic connector #8 has a connector body 61 which is a metal box-shaped exterior member); a distal tip (Pg. 3; Distal end of an insertion section) including an ultrasound transducer (Pg. 3; having an electronic scanning ultrasonic transmitting / receiving section; transducer body array, Fig. 3 #21); an elongate cable bundle (Pg. 4; ultrasonic signal cable #40 in which a plurality of fine signal lines extending from #27 are grouped is inserted, Fig. 4) in communication with the ultrasound transducer (Pg. 4; The ultrasonic signal cable #40 in which signal lines extending from the plurality of array elements #27), the elongate cable bundle passing proximally through the elongate shaft (Pg. 4; As shown in FIG. 5A, it extends into the ultrasonic connector #8; Examiner notes the ultrasonic signal cable connects the ultrasonic transducer on the distal end of the ultrasonic endoscope #2 to the ultrasonic connector #8 and thus passes through the elongate shaft #2a, shown in Fig. 1) and extending into the handle (Pg. 4; As shown in FIG. 5A, it extends into the ultrasonic connector #8), wherein the elongate cable bundle is folded upon itself (Fig. 6 shows the cable is folded upon itself entering the ferrite core; Pg. 5; it is inserted again from one open end side, protrudes from the other open end side, and is disposed at a predetermined position; See Fig. A above, Signal Cable 45 in positions marked B is folded upon itself as best understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation) in a folded region (Region depicted in Fig. 6; See Fig. A above, Dashed Region A is considered to be a folded region as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation) within the handle, and wherein a shield layer of the cable is removed from the cable bundle (Pg. 5; the integrated shield #46 removed is inserted from one opening end of the through hole #63a of the ferrite core #63 disposed in the frame portion #62; ultrasonic signal cable 40 is inserted into the frame portion 62… Coaxial wire 45, in a state where the general shield 46 is peeled off, are inserted into the frame portion, Fig. 6; See Fig. A above, Overall Shield 46, represented with the cross-hashing is removed from the signal cable 40) before the folded region such that the shield layer is not disposed in the folded region (Fig. 6 shows the shield #46 is removed before the cable is folded into the ferrite bead; The shield is not folded in the ultrasonic connector #8; See Fig. A below, Overall Shield 46 is not present in the folded region and is not folded).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
926
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, Cable Routing Through Ferrite Core. Adapted from Aoki, Fig. 6
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device Parchak in view of Aoki such that the elongate cable bundle is folded upon itself in a folded region within the handle and shield layer is removed from the cable bundle before the folded region such that the shield layer is not disposed in the folded region. This would further reduce noise signal mixed into the line by allowing electrical contact of the conductively connected frame part with the shield, and further allow an electrically floating state which can be used in combination with an electrically floating apparatus without being electrically insulated (Aoki, Pgs. 6 and 7).
The device of Parchak in view of Marshall and Aoki does not explicitly teach that the electrical noise suppression member is explicitly configured to provide the impedance of between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of at the frequency range.
Palomar, however, teaches a ferrite bead (Pgs. 3-5; Ferrite beads, FB56-xx size) configured to provide between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz (Pg. 3, Figure titled Frequency Range Comparison Chart shows the Ferrite beads labeled 31, 43, 46, and 75 all have impedance curves which fall within the range of 90 ohms and 102 ohms for 5 MHz to 10 Mhz.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the electrical noise suppression member of Parchak in view of Marshall and Aoki to have been a ferrite bead configured to provide between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz as taught by Palomar because it would have been a well understood and predictable substitute for the same purpose of providing an impedance at the desired range within a given operating frequency and further allowing RF decoupling and parasitic suppression (Palomar, Pg. 2).
Regarding claim 13, together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Parchak further teaches the shield layer is coupled to a receptacle of the handle (Paragraph [0042]; Typically, cables #64 comprise shields #70, which are connected via a ground pin #72 of connector #40 to a ground line #74 in receptacle #44, Figs. 4 and 7).
Claims 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parchak in view of Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Schaer (US 20180279994).
Regarding claim 14, together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as noted above.
Parchak further teaches that the cable bundle is coupled to a printed circuit boards that is secured within the handle (Paragraph [0039] and [0042]; a miniature printed circuit board #50 is connected, typically by soldering, to the pins of receptacle #44; Figs. 5 and 7).
Together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar do not teach that the cable bundle is coupled to a plurality of printed circuit boards that are disposed within the handle.
Schaer, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraph [0099]; ultrasound tool), wherein the cable bundle (Paragraph [0161]; conductor bundle, Fig. 19 #2020) is coupled to a plurality of printed circuit boards (Paragraphs [0161], [0167], and [0182]; into a proximal connector within which is housed a rigid or flexible printed circuit board, Fig. 19 #2030; flex circuit ends could be attached to a disposable mini-PCB element #2040, Fig. 23; Examiner notes that the end of each individual cable is connected to a mini-PCB) that are secured within the handle (Paragraph [0161]; Proximal connector #2015 can be incorporated into any of the systems, handles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Parchak in view of Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar such that the cable bundle is coupled to a plurality of printed circuit boards that are secured within the handle as it would have allowed connecting the cables to useful circuitry and linking the tool to a user-interface console embedded on the handle (Schaer, Paragraph [0161]).
Regarding claim 15, together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as noted above.
Together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar do not teach that the cable bundle extends from a proximal end of an elongate shaft within the handle.
Schaer, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraph [0099]; ultrasound tool), wherein the cable bundle (Paragraph [0161]; conductor bundle, Fig. 19 #2020) extends from a proximal end (Paragraphs [0102], [0103], and [0195]; Fig. 8, Part of the sheath portion #1208 within the handle section #1206; the conductor bundle #2020, either alone as it exits the proximal end of tool shaft #1210) of an elongate shaft (Paragraph [0102]; sheath portion, Fig. 8 #1208) within the handle (Paragraph [0102]; handle portion, Fig. 8 #1206; Examiner notes that the sheath section is within the handle as shown in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Parchak in view of Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar such that the cable bundle extends from a proximal end of an elongate shaft that is disposed within the handle as it would allow for a construction of the device of with modular components which allows for cleaning, repairing, or refurbishing of the device thereby ensuring continued safety and performance quality of the system (Schaer, Paragraphs [0128] and [0129]).
Regarding claim 16, together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, Palomar, and Schaer teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as noted above.
Schaer further teaches the cable bundle (Paragraph [0161]; conductor bundle, Fig. 19 #2020) extends radially outside (Fig. 19 shows the cable bundle extending radially outward from the PCB #2030) of a plurality of printed circuit boards (Paragraphs [0161], [0167], and [0182]; into a proximal connector within which is housed a rigid or flexible printed circuit board, Fig. 19 #2030; flex circuit ends could be attached to a disposable mini-PCB element #2040, Fig. 23; Examiner notes that the end of each individual cable is connected to a mini-PCB) that are disposed within the handle (Paragraph [0161]; Proximal connector #2015 can be incorporated into any of the systems, handles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Parchak in view of Marshall, Aoki, Palomar, and Schaer such that the cable bundle extends radially outside of a plurality of printed circuit boards that are disposed within the handle as it would have allowed easily detaching the cable bundle for cleaning and maintenance of the ultrasound tool (Schaer, Paragraphs [0166] and [0182]).
Regarding claim 18, together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as noted above.
Together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar do not teach that the cable bundle is axially moveable within the handle.
Schaer, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraph [0099]; ultrasound tool), wherein the cable bundle (Paragraph [0161]; conductor bundle, Fig. 19 #2020) is axially moveable within the handle (Paragraph [0195]; the bundle 2020 with or without shaft 1210 such that it may rotationally wind or unwind and translate axially back and forth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Parchak in view of Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar such that the cable bundle is axially moveable within the handle as it would allow accommodation of the translation and rotation of the tool during use, thus relieving strain from the tool (Schaer, Paragraph [0195]).
Regarding claim 19, together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar teach all of the limitations of claim 11 as noted above.
Together Parchak, Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar do not teach that the cable bundle is axially immoveable within the handle.
Schaer, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraph [0099]; ultrasound tool), wherein the cable bundle (Paragraphs [0160] and [0161]; conductor bundle, Fig. 19 #2020; the tool portion #1212 comprises the conductor bundle #2020) is axially immoveable within the handle (Paragraphs [0134] and [0210]; Tool lock #1955, which in FIG. 8 is disposed within the body of handle #1206, is secured to tool portion #1212 and may have one or more functions to constrain movement within sheath #1202; constraining the axial motion of tool #1212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Parchak in view of Marshall, Aoki, and Palomar such that the cable bundle is not adapted to be moved axially within the handle after the handle is assembled as it would have prevented the tip of the tool from entering the sheath where it may be rendered non-functional (Schaer, Paragraph [0134]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parchak in view of Marshal, Aoki, Palomar, and Schaer as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, respectively, and further in view of Masters (US 20070167827).
Regarding claim 17, together Parchak, Marshal, Aoki, Palomar, and Schaer teach all of the limitations of claim 15 as noted above.
Together Parchak, Marshal, Aoki, Palomar, and Schaer do not teach that the cable bundle passes between first and second of a plurality of printed circuit boards that are disposed within the handle.
Masters, however, teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter (Paragraphs [0026] and [0030]; medical imaging system) wherein the cable bundle (Paragraphs [0027]-[0029] and [0037]; Coax line and STP, Fig. 4 #1110 and 1120) passes between first (Paragraph [0028]; first PCB, Fig. 4) and second of a plurality of printed circuit boards (Paragraph [0029]; second PCB, Fig. 5 #1200; Examiner notes the coax line and stp run between the two PCBs as shown in Figs. 4 and 5 where the two cables connect the hub to the MDU) that are disposed within the handle (Paragraph [0026]; Fig. 3, portion of the device comprising the hub #1040 and MDU #1010; The first and second PCBs are within the hub and MDU as shown in Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Parchak in view of Marshal, Aoki, Palomar, and Schaer such that the cable bundle passes between first and second of a plurality of printed circuit boards that are disposed within the handle as it would allow the second PCB to electrically isolate the signals from the catheter from the systems ground, resulting in the desirable patient isolation which helps reduce noise in the system (Masters, Paragraph [0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 20-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1 and 20 recite the claim limitations “an elongate cable bundle… passes through a ferrite bead (claim 20: an electrical noise suppression member) that is secured within the handle… configured to provide between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz wherein the relationship between the impedance (X), frequency (f), and capacitance (C) is based on X =1/2πfc… ”.
The prior art of Parchak teaches an electrical noise suppression secured within a handle, Parchak fails to explicitly teach the noise suppression member is a ferrite bead and further that the noise suppression member provides 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz as required by the claim.
The prior art of Aoki teaches using ferrite beads as a noise suppression member but further fails to define the impedance and frequency at which the ferrite bead is used.
The prior art of Marshall teaches a noise suppression member of a capacitor that provides noise suppression at 5-10 Mhz, but fails to explicitly teach how capacitor is configured for noise suppression at 5-10 MHz and thus does not teach the impedance at 90-102 ohms is described by the relationship as claimed.
The prior art of Palomar teaches a ferrite bead for noise suppression and further teaches using the ferrite beads to provide an impedance value between 90 and 102 ohms at a frequency in the range of 5 MHz to 10 MHz, but does not teach the impedance provided by the ferrite beads follow the relationship as described in the claim.
Furthermore, there is no teachings in Parchak, Aoki, Marshall, Palomar, or any other prior art of record that suggests it would have been obvious or predictable to configure the elongate cable to pass through an electrical noise suppression member within the handle to provide between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 megahertz (MHz) to 10 MHz and wherein the impedance relationship with the frequency (f), and capacitance (C) is based on X =1/2πfc as claimed. For these reasons, claims 1 and 20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to claims filed 07/25/2025 with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive as noted above. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 20-24 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/25/2025 with respect to claims 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of skill in the art would not recognize the reference of Marshall teaching a noise suppression member between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance and a frequency range of 5 MHz to 10 MHz because of the inverse relationship between frequency and impedance. Applicant further asserts the specific embodiment of a 90 pF capacitor would have an impedance outside the claimed 90-102 ohms within the range of 5-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference of Marshall is relied upon to show both that it is known to provided noise suppression for ultrasound catheters at the frequency of 5 MHz to 60 MHz as described in Paragraph [0055] and further an impedance range of 30-354 ohms is for that given frequency range is known for enhancing the performance of a shield coupling capacitor. Such ranges are considered to overlap the claimed ranges of between 90 ohms and 102 ohms of impedance at a frequency in the range 5 MHz to 10 MHz. While the specific embodiment of a 90 pF capacitor does result in the claimed impedance under the impedance relationship described in the Remarks pg. 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that the described impedance range and described frequency range in Marshall would have been useful for suppressing noise. Furthermore, claimed ranges that lie inside ranges disclosed in prior art are considered to be obvious, especially when there is no further showing of criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
In response to applicant's argument that Palomar is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Applicant argues the reference of Palomar is directed toward radio equipment and further directed to TC2800 as relating to electrical and optical systems and components and thus not analogous art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP 2141.01(a). The reference of Palomar and the claimed invention are directed toward electrical components, in particular electrical noise suppression members and ferrite beads, and cable configurations, in particular the act of folding a cable through the electrical noise suppression member, to reduce radio frequency noise in an electrical device, as is claimed in instant application claim 11, for example as described in the Specification, paragraphs [0118]-[0119] of the instant application (Paragraph [0118]-[0119]; material or configuration such that it is adapted to increase impedance to any RF noise coupled into sensitive analog lines; ferrite construction may be selected to provide enhanced immunity from frequencies) and in Palomar pg. 2 (Ferrite beads are used for RF decoupling and parasitic suppression. When placed over a wire… they suppress common mode current… but does not affect the signal inside the… wire). The reference and the invention being directed toward elements and modes of suppressing noise is considered to be of the same field of endeavor. Furthermore the reference is considered to be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. The instant invention is directed toward a noise cancelling system comprising a ferrite bead with the specific properties of having an impedance between 90 ohms and 102 ohms at a frequency in the range of 5 MHz to 10 MHz. The reference of Palomar teaches a ferrite bead with the claimed properties for the purpose of electromagnetic shielding and noise suppression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have realized the significance of a particular ferrite bead as described by Palomar designed for suppressing electrical noise at a range of frequencies when looking for a particular solution of blocking noise at 5 to 10 MHz. One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand a noise suppression member for reducing electrical noise in one field could be applied to the invention of blocking radio-frequency noise in a catheter. Examiner would like to point out the act measuring and transmitting ultrasound signals through wires, especially in the case of catheters and ivus systems, involve transmission of currents at radio-frequencies, for example as described in Marshall paragraph [0038]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the need and pertinence of selecting an electrical noise suppression member designed for suppressing noise at these radio frequencies, for example, at least a particular ferrite bead as described by Palomar. For these reasons, the reference of Palomar is considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention, as being both from the same field of endeavor, for example relating to noise suppression members for reducing RF noise, and further being reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, in particular the selection of a elements to reduce radio-frequency noise at radio frequencies at which an ultrasound catheter operates. Rejections under 35 USC 103 over claim 11 and the associated dependent claims are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dean N Edun whose telephone number is (571)270-3745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Anh Tuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/DEAN N EDUN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
1/12/26