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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/17/2025 has been entered. Full faith and credit are afforded the previous Examiner and prior office actions.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s remarks, filed on 11/17/2025. The amendments to claim(s) 1, 13, 15, and 17-18 have been entered. Claim(s) 3, 7, 9-11, 16, and 20 is/are cancelled by Applicant and therefore withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). Corresponding rejections of claim(s) 3, 7, 9-11, 16, and 20 from the prior office actions are withdrawn as moot in light of the Applicant’s cancellation. Claims 2, 19 and 23 were withdrawn by Applicant and are also withdrawn from consideration. New claim(s) 25 have been entered. Accordingly, claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 remain pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The submission accompanying the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the final Office Action on 7/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). Accordingly, the submission accompanying the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6-11, with respect to the claims have been fully considered.
After review of the Applicant’s remarks and the amendments regarding the objections to claim(s) 17 and 18, Examiner respectfully agrees with Applicant and the prior objections to claims 17-18 are withdrawn. However, new claim objections are presented.
After review of the Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection for Nonstatutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting to the claim(s), Examiner respectfully maintains the previous rejection.
Regarding the interpretation(s) under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), Examiner respectfully maintains the prior interpretations.
Regarding the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Examiner respectfully disagrees with the remarks and does not find Applicant’s arguments persuasive. New rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are presented in view of the claim language and Applicant’s instant specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejection are made in view of the following: new amendments provided by Applicant and attached remarks; updated search and review of pertinent, eligible prior art; newly added claims; and/or different interpretation of the previously applied references.
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s arguments only address independent claim(s) 1, and no remarks regarding the subject matter of the dependent claim(s) have been presented. Accordingly, the rejections to dependent claims 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24 are modified to address Applicant’s amendments and are sustained and the new rejection to claim(s) 25 are issued. Taken as a whole, none of the currently drafted claims are patentable in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101, 35 U.S.C. §112 and the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103. Accordingly, the rejections of claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of an informality. The claim recites in the preamble “The system of claim 12 wherein”, which appears to contain a minor typographical error. It is suggested to add a comma to the preamble (e.g., –The system of claim 12, wherein–) to remain consistent with the claim set. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 18 recite(s) the limitation “such that […]”. It is suggested to replace the phrase “such that” with the term —wherein— to ensure the positive recitation of all elements in the claim. The use of the phrase “such that” may be interpreted as a negative limitation in the claim, resulting in an interpretation of subsequent limitations (i.e., “to determine if the scanner is being held such that enough pressure is being exerted on the skin” in claim 18) as preferred or suggested limitations, and therefore may be excluded from examination.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations which use the word “means” are found in the following:
“vii) a user interface comprising a display screen and means to accept user's instructions; and” in claim 12. Upon review of the Applicant’s specification, the instant disclosure provides:
“vii) a user interface comprising a display screen and means to accept user's instructions, e.g. a keyboard or touch screen;”
[p.14, ln.27-28] (emphasis added)
For the purposes of examination, any keyboard or touch screen meets the present “means” limitation.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein the at least one IMU is provided in an element associated with the scanner and moving therewith during operation” in claim 4. Upon review of the Applicant’s specification, the instant disclosure provides:
“In some embodiments of the system the at least one IMU is one of: a) integral with the scanner; b) connected to the scanner via a plug-in connection; and c) provided in an element associated with the scanner and moving therewith during operation.”
[p.2, ln.30-32] (emphasis added)
“The component of the system that is essential to all configurations is called herein a “scanner,” which comprises components of the system that are moved by an operator over the surface of a patient's body to acquire the ultrasound images. […] The housing comprises at least the minimum number of components of the system that must be located on the patient's body to obtain the ultrasound images. These elements can be integral with the housing or associated therewith. In the context of this description, the term “associated with” should be interpreted as meaning that the elements or components to which it is referred must not necessarily be integral with the housing, but must be in useful cooperation therewith, For instance, where an accelerometer is discussed, it must move together with the housing, and when a communication component is discussed, it must be in communication with any other component located within the housing with which it must exchange data, or from which it must receive data. These components are: i) an ultrasound probe head, i.e. an array of ultrasound elements; ii) electronic components for wired or wireless communication with remote terminals, and iii) a power source, e.g. a battery when the system is wireless or power supply in case of wired system; and in most embodiments iv) at least one Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) comprising the inertial sensors, i.e. a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope, and possibly other sensors, e.g. a three-axis magnetometer and a pressure sensor.
However, in some embodiments of the invention the inertial sensors are not integral with the housing. Instead, the inertial sensors of the smartphone or the like portable device (that will be discussed later) can be used, or add-on inertial sensors can be connected to the housing prior to use.”
[p.13-14, ln.25-16] (emphasis added)
“The electronic components, i.e. the AFE, IMU, processor, memory devices, and communication components can be provided as separate integrated circuits (ICs) or integrated into one more ASICs that comprise all or some of the ICs.”
[p.15, ln.1-3] (emphasis added)
“These sensors of the inertial measurement unit (IMU) or inertial navigation system (INS} can be implemented using a single chip ASIC that contains all or some of them or as discrete chip that implements each sensor separately or as combinations of sensors”
[p.17, ln.30-32] (emphasis added)
Aside from repeating the claim language, the instant written description fails to point out what ‘an element’ particularly is, or to define the relationship between the ‘element’ and the scanner.
“electronic components for wired or wireless communication with remote terminals” in claim 8. Upon review of the Applicant’s specification, the instant disclosure provides:
“communication components can be provided as separate integrated circuits (ICs) or integrated into one or more ASICs that comprise at least some of the ICs”
[p.4, ln.19-20] (emphasis added)
For the purposes of examination, any integrated circuit or ASIC meets the present “electronic component” limitation.
“device component adapted to store” in claim 12. Upon review of the Applicant’s specification, the instant disclosure provides:
“memory device […] memory devices, and communication components can be provided as separate integrated circuits (ICs) or integrated into one or more ASICs that comprise at least some of the ICs.”
[p.4, ln.4, 17-19] (emphasis added)
For the purposes of examination, any ‘memory device’ meets the present “device component” limitation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the present application, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from the independent claim (claims 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25) are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claim 1 is drawn to a system, which does fall under the statutory categories of invention. However, claim 1 recites “A system for acquiring ultrasound images of an organ of a human body, comprising a scanner and at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated therewith wherein instructions to an operator are provided in real time visually on a display screen or audibly from speakers by a trained health care professional located at a remote terminal.” The limitations of claim 1 recited directly above set forth the abstract idea, as the only structures required to perform these limitations are a conventional, off-the-shelf computing device or processor (i.e., “a remote terminal”), generic data acquisition components (i.e., “a scanner and at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU)”), and generic components for presenting information (i.e. “a display screen or […] speakers”). Thus, this claim reads on organizing human activity and/or a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed limitations recited above comprise an action to be performed by a trained professional using a conventional, off-the-shelf computing device to send information (i.e., providing instructions), which reads on simply organizing human activity and/or a mental process. While this abstract idea does require some structure, the structures required are recited at a high level of generality and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. The required structures are: “a scanner and at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU)” presumably for collecting data (as there is no actual data collection recited in the claim), which constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity; a display screen and/or speakers to present the instructions, thereby constituting insignificant post-solution activity; and a remote terminal, which is a generic computer element. The inclusion of a generic computer element does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because this amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and transmitting information.
Furthermore, the claim is silent in regard to how the remote terminal is configured to transmit the instructions from the trained health care professional to an operator. The lack of clarity on how the transmission of the instructions occurs further contributes to why this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Analyzing the claim as a whole, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recited in claim 1, both when considered separately and in combination, amount to nothing more than organizing human activity. This is exemplified by the fact that each and every limitation of claim 1 can be performed simply by a user on a generic laptop. In this example, the trained health care professional uses the remote terminal (i.e., laptop) to obtain data – presumably generated by the scanner and IMU – to perform a determination resulting in ‘instructions’ (e.g., the trained health care professional views whatever the obtained data is and determines with their eyes what instructions are required), and transmits the instructions to the display screen and/or speakers. Also, the claim does not purport to provide any improvement to the technology, which weighs against patentability. Viewing all the claim limitations individually, or as a combination, the claim as a whole does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
In view of the above, claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 depend directly from claim 1, and therefore these dependent claims rely upon the same abstract idea as the independent claim, as set forth above. Additionally, dependent claims 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 do nothing more than further limit the specificity of the abstract idea, and do not remedy the patentability issues described above because they fail to add additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the dependent claim(s) 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5-6, 12, 15, 17-18, 21-22 and 25 is/are 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(s) 8, 13-14 and 24 are rejected at least by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim(s) 4 and 25 recite the limitation "A system according to claim 1". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, it is not clear what the term “A system” is specifically referring to. In an interpretation, the ‘system’ may refer to the system introduced in claim 1; in another interpretation the ‘system’ may refer to a new distinct system (based on the ‘according to’ language) which is related to the ‘system’ introduced in claim 1. It is suggested to amend the claims to correct the antecedent basis and remain consistent with the independent claim (e.g., –The system of claim 1–). For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation, including those discussed above, is applied to limitation.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation “wherein the at least one IMU is provided in an element associated with the scanner and moving therewith during operation” which renders the claim indefinite. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) interpretation section, the instant written description fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ‘element’ relative to the scanner and IMU. The written description describes IMUs which may be a component within the housing of the scanner, within a smartphone or ‘the like portable device’, or within an integrated circuit or ASIC, however there is no definition of an ‘element’ linked to the IMU. The generic ‘element’ term, as well as the ‘associated with’ language, is inherently broad and does not give sufficient detail which allows one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the structure being claimed. It is suggested to amend the claim to clarify and define the structure of the ‘element’ relative to the scanner and IMU. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the ‘element’ is any housing, ‘component’ within a housing, smartphone, portable device, IC or ASIC.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the system is configured to issue instructions to an operator of the system that allow scans to be performed also by persons not trained for ultrasound scanning including a patient themself” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and the claim language is unclear. The use of ‘an operator’ lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear if the ‘operator’ in the instant claim 5 refers to the ‘operator’ recited in independent claim 1 or to a new ‘operator’. Furthermore, the instant claim 5 introduces ‘an operator’, ‘persons not trained’, and ‘a patient’ – this is inconsistent and unclear because it is uncertain who is operating the ‘scanner’. It is suggested to amend the claim(s) to remain consistent throughout the claim set and define who is performing the ultrasound imaging. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language – including those discussed above – is applied to the limitations, which may include any person related to the ultrasound scanning session.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the scanner comprises a housing that is […] moved across the skin of a person or animal”, which renders the claim indefinite because the use of ‘a person or animal’ is unclear. The independent claim 1 recites “A system for acquiring ultrasound images of an organ of a human body”, however the instant claim 6 recites a ‘person’ or an ‘animal’. The instant claim 6 is directed to encompass any type of animal (i.e., anything other than homo sapiens), yet claim 1 is directed towards a human body only. The claim(s) are inconsistent with one another and do not clearly indicate the subject being imaged; accordingly, it is suggested to amend the claim(s) for consistency by specifying that the imaging subject is human and/or part of the human body. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is applied to the limitations, which may be any type of animal (including humans).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “vii) a user interface comprising a display screen and means to accept user's instructions; and]”, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In view of the conditional nature of independent claim 1 (i.e., “instructions to an operator are provided in real time visually on a display screen or audibly from speakers”), in the interpretation that the ‘instructions’ are provided in real time ‘visually’, antecedent basis issues are raised. Thus, it is not clear if the ‘display screen’ in the instant claim 12 refers to a new distinct ‘display screen’ or refers to the ‘display screen’ in independent claim 1. It is suggested to amend the claim to clearly define the ‘display screen(s)’ relative to the system and ‘user interface’. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is any type of ‘display screen’ comprised as part of a system or user interface.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the AFE, IMU, processor, memory devices, and communication components […]”, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically it is unclear what either the ‘memory devices’ or the ‘communication components’ are specifically referring to, because there is no prior recitation of any ‘memory devices’ or ‘communication components’ in the instant claim 15 or in claims 1 and 12 (upon which claim 15 depends). Notably the ‘memory devices’ of claim 15 indicate a plurality of ‘devices’, however claim 12 introduces a single “device component adapted to store data […]”. It is suggested to amend the claim(s) to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ‘memory devices’ and ‘communication components’. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations are any electronic component related to ‘memory’ and ‘communication’.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “a remote terminal” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In the interpretation that the system of instant claim 17 comprises ‘a remote terminal’, it is unclear whether the ‘remote terminal’ refers to the ‘remote terminal’ recited in independent claim 1 or if the ‘remote terminal’ of claim 17 refers to a new and distinct ‘remote terminal’. It is suggested to amend the claim(s) to clearly define what structures are comprised within the system. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language – including those discussed above – is applied to the limitations.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “to produce ultrasound images; to analyze the data; to decide which images to display on the display screen; to discard images; to instruct an operator to hold the housing of the scanner in a predetermined manner; […] and to provide instructions how to move the scanner correctly in order to obtain images”, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim, and the limitations are also unclear. First, there is no prior recitation of a ‘housing’ which points out what the ‘housing of the scanner’ is referring to. Next, it is unclear if the limitation ‘to produce ultrasound images’ in claim 18 refers to the ‘ultrasound images’ which are ‘acquired’ in independent claim 1 or if they refer to a new distinct set of ‘ultrasound images’. Furthermore, the use of the term ‘images’ (whether ‘displayed’, ‘discarded’, or ‘obtained’) is unclear because it is not certain if these ‘images’ refer to the ‘ultrasound images’ in either of the instant claim 18 or independent claim 1 as discussed above, or to the ‘images’ stored in the ‘device component’ in claim 12. It is suggested to amend the claim(s) to clearly indicate the type of ‘images’ which are processed in the instant claim 18, to specify what types of data are being stored/processed (e.g., ultrasound signals, other patient data, etc.), and to define the ‘housing’. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language is applied to the limitations.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the electronic communication component is selected from one or more of USB (United Serial Bus), fiber optic, UWB (ultra wideband), and IR (infrared)”, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically it is unclear if the ‘electronic communication component’ is referring to the ‘electronic components for wired or wireless communication’ as recited in claim 8 or if the ‘electronic communication component’ in the instant claim 21 are new distinct components. The limitations are neither consistent with the recitation as discussed above, nor the actual number (i.e., ‘electronic components’ vs. ‘electronic communication component’) of ‘components’ being claimed. It is suggested to amend the claim(s) to particularly point out and distinctly claim the ‘electronic components’/‘electronic communication component’. For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the ‘component’ – including those provided above – is applied to the limitation.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “The system of claim 18, adapted to alert the operator in case of insufficient coupling […]” which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not clearly define what aspect or structural element of the ‘system for acquiring ultrasound images’ performs the ‘alert’. It is suggested to amend the claim to clarify the structure of the ‘system’ which performs the alert (e.g., the ‘display screen’, the ‘speakers’, etc.) with the phrase “wherein the” (e.g., –The system of claim 18, wherein the […]–). For the purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations includes any structure (e.g., display screen, speakers, etc.) configured to present information and capable of alerting the operator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Rothberg et al. (US20190059851A1, 2019-02-28; hereinafter “Rothberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Rothberg teaches a system for acquiring ultrasound images of an organ of a human body (“an exemplary system 1100 for collecting ultrasound data from a subject” [0123]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15, 20]), comprising
a scanner (“the ultrasound device 1102” [0123]; “The ultrasound device 1314 may be configured to generate ultrasound data that may be employed to generate an ultrasound image.” [0134]; The ultrasound device (i.e., scanner) is in communication with a host device [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15, 18; see fig. 11 reproduced below]) and
at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated therewith (“The ultrasound device 1314 includes ultrasound circuitry 1324, […] and a motion and/or orientation sensor 1332.” [0133]; “The motion and/or orientation sensor 1332 may be configured to generate motion and/or orientation data regarding the ultrasound device 1314.” [0137]; The motion and/or orientation sensor (i.e., IMU) comprised within ultrasound device generates data describing the motion and orientation of the ultrasound device during an ultrasound examination [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15])
wherein instructions to an operator are provided in real time visually on a display screen or audibly from speakers by a trained health care professional located at a remote terminal (“a medical professional (e.g., a doctor, nurse, or imaging technician) or another individual, who may be remote, may receive the ultrasound data and determine which is the target ultrasound data and which is the non-target ultrasound data (e.g., by viewing ultrasound images generated from the ultrasound data).” [0120]; “The ultrasound data may be processed in real-time during a scanning session as the echo signals are received.” [0139]; “the host device 1302 may be configured to provide instructions to an operator of the ultrasound device 1314 for moving the ultrasound device 1314 in order to collect ultrasound data.” [0140]; “the host device 1302 may communicate with one or more external devices via the network 1316 […] external devices may include servers 1318, workstations 1320, and/or databases 1322.” [0143]; “In some embodiments, an individual (e.g., a remote expert operating a remote processing device) may generate or select the predetermined path and transmit the path (or an indication thereof) to the host device.” [0209]; Ultrasound data acquired by the ultrasound device may be processed and transmitted to external devices via network in real-time, wherein a medical professional at a remote processing device (i.e., remote terminal) may transmit a path and instructions for capturing ultrasound images to the operator’s host device via network communication [0123-0164, 0208-0213], [fig. 11, 13-15, 18, 20; see fig. 11 reproduced below]).
PNG
media_image1.png
528
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A medical professional receives ultrasound data in real-time and transmits data to guide acquisition of ultrasound images to the operator of ultrasound device, wherein a host device present images and instructions to the operator (Rothberg [fig. 11])
Regarding claim 4, Rothberg teaches a system according to claim 1, Rothberg further teaching wherein the at least one IMU is provided in an element associated with the scanner and moving therewith during operation (“The ultrasound device 1314 includes ultrasound circuitry 1324, […] and a motion and/or orientation sensor 1332.” [0133]; “The motion and/or orientation sensor 1332 may be configured to generate motion and/or orientation data regarding the ultrasound device 1314.” [0137]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1 rejection]).
Regarding claim 5, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 1, Rothberg further teaching wherein the system is configured to issue instructions to an operator of the system that allow scans to be performed also by persons not trained for ultrasound scanning including a patient themselves (“a medical professional (e.g., a doctor, nurse, or imaging technician) or another individual, who may be remote, may receive the ultrasound data and determine which is the target ultrasound data and which is the non-target ultrasound data (e.g., by viewing ultrasound images generated from the ultrasound data).” [0120]; “the host device 1302 may be configured to provide instructions to an operator of the ultrasound device 1314 for moving the ultrasound device 1314 in order to collect ultrasound data.” [0140]; “the host device 1302 may communicate with one or more external devices via the network 1316 […] external devices may include servers 1318, workstations 1320, and/or databases 1322.” [0143]; “In some embodiments, an individual (e.g., a remote expert operating a remote processing device) may generate or select the predetermined path and transmit the path (or an indication thereof) to the host device.” [0209]; The operator of the ultrasound device may be untrained in how to use the ultrasound device to capture the desired ultrasound image [0050, 0123-0164, 0208-0213], [fig. 11, 13-15, 18, 20], [see claim 1 rejection]).
Regarding claim 6, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 1, Rothberg further teaching wherein the scanner comprises a housing that is ergonomically designed to be held by an operator and moved across the skin of a person or animal (“The ultrasound device 1102 may be implemented in any of variety of ways. For example, the ultrasound device 1102 may be implemented as a handheld device” [0124]; “The ultrasound device 1314 includes ultrasound circuitry 1324, processing circuitry 1326, memory circuitry 1328, communication circuitry 1330, and a motion and/or orientation sensor 1332.” [0133]; The ultrasound device may be embodied in a handheld device containing circuitry, transducer elements and sensors [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15, 18], [see claim 1 rejection]).
Regarding claim 8, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 6, Rothberg further teaching wherein components in, or associated with the housing are:
i) an ultrasound probe head of said scanner (“The ultrasound circuitry 1324 may include one or more ultrasonic transducers monolithically integrated onto a single semiconductor die.” [0135]; “the ultrasound device 1400 may include one or more transducer arrangements (e.g., arrays) 1402,” [0144]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15, 18; see fig. 18 reproduced below]);
PNG
media_image2.png
570
829
media_image2.png
Greyscale
‘Probe head’ of ultrasound device comprising transducer elements (Rothberg [fig. 18], annotated)
ii) the at least one IMU, which comprises a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope (“The ultrasound device may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer” [0090]; “The motion and/or orientation sensor 1332 may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer. Depending on the sensors present in the motion and/or orientation sensor 1332, the motion and/or orientation data generated by the motion and/or orientation sensor 1332 may describe three degrees of freedom, six degrees of freedom, or nine degrees of freedom for the ultrasound device 1314. For example, the motion and/or orientation sensor may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or magnetometer. Each of these types of sensors may describe three degrees of freedom.” [0137]; The motion and/or orientation sensor may comprise an accelerometer and a gyroscope, wherein the accelerometer and gyroscope may generate data describing three degrees of freedom (i.e., three-axis) each respectively [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15, 18]);
iii) electronic components for wired or wireless communication with remote terminals (“the ultrasound system 1300 includes an ultrasound device 1314 in wired and/or wireless communication with a host device 1302. The ultrasound device 1314 includes ultrasound circuitry 1324, processing circuitry 1326, memory circuitry 1328, communication circuitry 1330,” [0133]; “The communication circuitry 1330 may be configured to enable communication between the ultrasound device 1314 and the computing device 1302.” [0136]; “the host device 1302 may communicate with one or more external devices via the network 1316. The host device 1302 may be connected to the network 1316 over a wired connection (e.g., via an Ethernet cable) and/or a wireless connection (e.g., over a WiFi network).” [0143]; “The handheld device 1820 may be configured to transmit data collected by the device 1820 wirelessly to one or more external device for further processing. In other embodiments, the handheld device 1820 may be configured transmit data collected by the device 1820 to one or more external devices using one or more wired connections,” [0168]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15; see fig. 13 reproduced below]), and
iv) a power source (“the ultrasound device 1400 may include one or more transducer arrangements (e.g., arrays) 1402, […] a power management circuit 1418,” [0144]; “The power management circuit 1418 may, for example, be responsible for converting one or more input voltages VIN from an off-chip source into voltages needed to carry out operation of the chip, and for otherwise managing power consumption within the device 1400 [...] the power management circuit 1418 may step that voltage up or down, as necessary, using a charge pump circuit” [0150]; The power management circuit of ultrasound device may use a charge pump which comprises capacitors [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15]).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Rothberg [fig. 13])
Regarding claim 12, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 1, Rothberg further teaching comprising:
v) an Analog Front End (AFE) that transmits and receives ultrasound signals (“The ultrasound circuitry 1324 may be configured to generate the ultrasound data. […] the ultrasonic transducers may be formed the same chip as other electronic components in the ultrasound circuitry 1324 (e.g., transmit circuitry, receive circuitry, control circuitry, power management circuitry, and processing circuitry) to form a monolithic ultrasound device.” [0135]; “the ultrasound device 1400 may include one or more transducer arrangements (e.g., arrays) 1402, transmit (TX) circuitry 1404, receive (RX) circuitry 1406, a timing and control circuit 1408, a signal conditioning/processing circuit 1410,” [0144]; The ultrasound device includes transducer arrays and transmit TX and receive RX circuitry (i.e., AFE) which drive the transducers to generate ultrasonic pulses and to receive and process electronic signals generated by the transducer array, respectively [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15; see fig. 14 reproduced below]);
vi) a processor containing software (“The host device 1104 may include one or more processing elements (such as a processor), for example, to provide instructions for moving the ultrasound device 1102 relative to the subject 1101.” [0126]; “The processing circuitry 1326 may control operation of the ultrasound device 1314 […] To perform any of the functionality of the ultrasound device 1314 described herein, the processing circuitry 1326 may execute one or more processor-executable instructions stored in one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (e.g., the memory circuitry 1328),” [0136]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15]);
vii) a user interface comprising a display screen and means to accept user's instructions (“the host device 1302 may be configured to perform any of the processes described herein (e.g., using the processor 1310) and/or display any of the user interfaces described herein (e.g., using the display screen 1308).” [0140]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1 rejection]); and
viii) device component adapted to store data and images processed by the software in the processor (“The ultrasound device 1314 includes ultrasound circuitry 1324, processing circuitry 1326, memory circuitry 1328, […] The host device 1302 includes an audio output device 1304, an imaging device 1306, a display screen 1308, a processor 1310, a memory 1312,” [0133]; “The memory circuitry 1328 may include non-transitory computer-readable storage media.” [0136]; “the host device 1302 may include one or more processors 1310 (e.g., computer hardware processors) and one or more articles of manufacture that include non-transitory computer-readable storage media such as the memory 1312.” [0140]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15; see fig. 14 reproduced below]).
PNG
media_image4.png
571
820
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Rothberg [fig. 14])
Regarding claim 13, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 12, Rothberg further teaching wherein the AFE comprises transmitters, receivers, amplifiers, and analog to digital (A/D) and digital to analog (D/A) converters (“The ultrasound circuitry 1324 may be configured to generate the ultrasound data. […] the ultrasonic transducers may be formed the same chip as other electronic components in the ultrasound circuitry 1324 (e.g., transmit circuitry, receive circuitry, control circuitry, power management circuitry, and processing circuitry) to form a monolithic ultrasound device.” [0135]; “the ultrasound device 1400 may include one or more transducer arrangements (e.g., arrays) 1402, transmit (TX) circuitry 1404, receive (RX) circuitry 1406, a timing and control circuit 1408, a signal conditioning/processing circuit 1410,” [0144]; “the RX circuitry 1406 for a respective transducer element 1502 includes an analog processing block 1518, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 1520, and a digital processing block 1522.” [0162]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15; see fig. 15 reproduced below], [see claim 12 rejection]).
PNG
media_image5.png
608
837
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Rothberg [fig. 15])
Regarding claim 14, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 12
Rothberg further teaching wherein the processor responds to software instructions to operate the system and to receive and process ultrasound signals received from the AFE to produce ultrasound images and the processor receives and processes inertial measurement signals from the IMU in accord with software instructions (“The processing circuitry 1326 may control operation of the ultrasound device 1314, and in particular, operation of the ultrasound circuitry 1324, the memory circuitry 1328, and the communication circuitry 1330. As one example, the processing circuitry 1326 may control collection of ultrasound data by the ultrasound device 1314. […] To perform any of the functionality of the ultrasound device 1314 described herein, the processing circuitry 1326 may execute one or more processor-executable instructions stored in one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (e.g., the memory circuitry 1328)” [0136]; “The host device 1302 may be configured to process the ultrasound data from the ultrasound device 1314 to generate ultrasound images for display on the display screen 1308. The processing may be performed by, for example, the processor 1310. The processor 1310 may also be adapted to control the acquisition of ultrasound data with the ultrasound device 1314.” [0139]; The processing circuitry of the ultrasound device controls the TX/RX circuitry to acquire ultrasound data, wherein the host device may process ultrasound data and motion/orientation data to generate ultrasound images and operator instructions [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1, 12 rejections]).
Regarding claim 15, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 12, Rothberg further teaching wherein the AFE, IMU, processor, memory devices, and communication components are provided as separate integrated circuits (ICs) or integrated into application-specific integrated circuits (ASICS) that comprise at least some of the ICs (“the processing circuitry 1201 may include specially-programmed and/or special-purpose hardware such as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC).” [0130]; “the ultrasonic transducers may be formed the same chip as other electronic components in the ultrasound circuitry 1324 (e.g., transmit circuitry, receive circuitry, control circuitry, power management circuitry, and processing circuitry) to form a monolithic ultrasound device.” [0135]; “the TX circuitry 1404/RX circuitry 1406 includes a separate TX circuit and a separate RX circuit for each transducer element 1502 in the array(s) 1502, but there is only one instance of each of the timing & control circuit 1408 and the signal conditioning/processing circuit 1410.” [0159]; The TX circuit, RX circuit, memory circuitry, processing circuitry, communication circuitry, and motion/orientation circuitry may be comprised as separate circuits [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 12, 13 rejections]).
Regarding claim 17, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 12, Rothberg further teaching further comprising at least one of:
ix) a remote terminal (“a medical professional (e.g., a doctor, nurse, or imaging technician) or another individual, who may be remote, may receive the ultrasound data and determine which is the target ultrasound data and which is the non-target ultrasound data (e.g., by viewing ultrasound images generated from the ultrasound data).” [0120]; “the host device 1302 may communicate with one or more external devices via the network 1316 […] external devices may include servers 1318, workstations 1320, and/or databases 1322.” [0143]; “an individual (e.g., a remote expert operating a remote processing device) may generate or select the predetermined path and transmit the path (or an indication thereof) to the host device.” [0209]; [0123-0164, 0208-0213], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1 rejection]);
x) at least one additional IMU; xi) at least one three-axis magnetometer (“The ultrasound device may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer, and these devices may be used by the ultrasound device to generate the motion and/or orientation data.” [0090]; “The motion and/or orientation sensor 1332 may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or a magnetometer.” [0137]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 8 rejection]);
xii) at least one pressure sensor; and xiii) a speaker and a microphone for communicating with a remote health care provider (“The input/output (I/O) devices 1203 may be configured to facilitate communication with other systems and/or an operator. Example I/O devices that may facilitate communication with an operator include: a keyboard, a mouse, a trackball, a microphone, a touch screen, a printing device, a display screen, a speaker, and a vibration device.” [0131]; “the host device 1302 may include one or more input and/or output devices such as the audio output device 1304, the imaging device 1306, the display screen 1308, and the vibration device 1309. The audio output device 1304 may be a device that is configured to emit audible sound such as a speaker.” [0141]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1 rejection]).
Regarding claim 18, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 12, Rothberg further teaching wherein the processor responds to software instructions to execute at least one of the following:
to produce ultrasound images (“The host device 1302 may be configured to process the ultrasound data from the ultrasound device 1314 to generate ultrasound images for display on the display screen 1308. The processing may be performed by, for example, the processor 1310.” [0139]; [0123-0164, 0208-0213], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1 rejection]);
to analyze the data; to decide which images to display on the display screen; to discard images; to instruct an operator to hold the housing of the scanner in a predetermined manner; to compute the location and attitude of the scanner including roll, pitch, and yaw; to determine if the scanner is being held such that enough pressure is being exerted on the skin; and to provide instructions how to move the scanner correctly in order to obtain images.
Regarding claim 21, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 8, Rothberg further teaching wherein the electronic communication component is selected from one or more of USB (United Serial Bus), fiber optic, UWB (ultra wideband), and IR (infrared) (“Example I/O devices that may facilitate communication with other systems include wired and/or wireless communication circuitry such as BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, WiFi, and/or USB communication circuitry.” [0131]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15]).
Regarding claim 22, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 18, Rothberg further teaching adapted to alert the operator in case of insufficient coupling between the scanner and the body as detected via image processing (“moving the ultrasound device along the predetermined path 107 should result in the ultrasound device collecting the target ultrasound data when the ultrasound device moves over the region 115 along the predetermined path 107 […] As a side effect of moving the ultrasound device along the predetermined path 107, non-target ultrasound data may be collected when the ultrasound device moves over other regions along the predetermined path 107.” [0062]; “the host device 1302 may be configured to provide instructions to an operator of the ultrasound device 1314 for moving the ultrasound device 1314 in order to collect ultrasound data” [0140]; The instructions guide the operator during an ultrasound imaging examination to acquire an ultrasound image of a desired anatomical feature by moving the ultrasound device along a predetermined path, wherein the ultrasound images acquired during the examination are analyzed in real-time (i.e., determining insufficient coupling relative to desired anatomical feature) to determine how to move the ultrasound device [0123-0164, 0208-0213], [fig. 11, 13-15, 20; see fig. 4 reproduced below], [see claim 1 rejection]).
PNG
media_image6.png
1027
860
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Rothberg [fig. 4])
Regarding claim 24, Rothberg teaches the system of claim 15, Rothberg further teaching wherein the processor includes one or more members of the group consisting of MCU (microcontroller unit), FPGA (field- programmable gate array), and CPLD (Complex programmable logic device) (“the ultrasonic transducers may be formed the same chip as other electronic components in the ultrasound circuitry 1324 (e.g., transmit circuitry, receive circuitry, control circuitry, power management circuitry, and processing circuitry) to form a monolithic ultrasound device.” [0135]; The electronic components in the ultrasound circuitry may be formed on the same chip (i.e., a microcontroller) [0123-0164, 0208-0213], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 1, 15 rejections]).
Regarding claim 25, Rothberg teaches a system according to claim 1, Rothberg further teaching wherein the system provides two way communication between the operator and the trained health care professional (“The input/output (I/O) devices 1203 may be configured to facilitate communication with other systems and/or an operator. Example I/O devices that may facilitate communication with an operator include: a keyboard, a mouse, a trackball, a microphone, a touch screen, a printing device, a display screen, a speaker, and a vibration device. Example I/O devices that may facilitate communication with other systems include wired and/or wireless communication circuitry” [0131]; [0123-0164], [fig. 11, 13-15], [see claim 17 rejection]).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12-15, 17-18, 21-22 and 24-25 in the instant Application No. 17/920,948 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 and 22-24 of copending Application No. 17/920,957 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1 of Application No. 17/920,948, the copending Application No. 17/920,957 teaches a system for acquiring ultrasound images of an organ of a human body (“A system for acquiring ultrasound images of internal body organs, comprising” [clm 1]), comprising
a scanner (“a scanner,” [clm 1]) and
at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated therewith (“at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated therewith,” [clm 1])
wherein instructions to an operator are provided in real time visually on a display screen or audibly from speakers by a trained health care professional located at a remote terminal (“and an image processing module adapted to audibly alert the user in case of insufficient coupling between the apparatus and the body; wherein the system is configured to issue instructions to an operator of the system that allow scans to be performed also by persons not trained for ultrasound scanning including a patient themself, and wherein the scans are transmitted to a remote location for analysis by a healthcare professional.” [clm 1]; “The system of claim 14, wherein instructions to the operator are provided visually on the display screen or audibly from the speakers by a trained health care professional located at a remote terminal.” [clm 16]).
Regarding the dependent claims:
Instant Application No. 17/920,948
Copending Application No. 17/920,957
4
5
1
6
1, 14
8
8
12
9
17
10
18
14
21
19
22
20
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James F. McDonald III whose telephone number is (571)272-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8AM-6PM 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, Chris Koharski can be reached at 5712727230. 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.
JAMES FRANKLIN MCDONALD III
Examiner
Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797