DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20, 21, 23, 25-27, 30, and 34-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 25-27, 30, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent No. 6,210,336 to Fredriksen in view of U. S. Publication No. 2018/0263597 to Tchang et al.
Regarding Claim 20 and 30, Fredriksen teaches an ultrasound coupling system for coupling an ultrasound transducer to a body surface to be examined, comprising a flexible stand-off cushion, and a tab connected to the stand-off cushion for coupling the stand-off cushion to the ultrasound transducer (figs. 9-16 teaches an ultrasonic probe with a cushion).
Frederiksen teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach having an envelope forming a closed hollow; a tab provide on the envelope.
Tchang teaches having an envelope forming a closed hollow; a tab provide on the envelope (para 0120; figs. 1-3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frederiksen with an envelope forming a closed hollow as taught by Tchang, since such a setup would result in precise placement of the probe on the coupling system.
Regarding Claim 21, Fredriksen teaches that the flexible stand-off cushion has an envelope forming a hollow and the tab is integrally formed with the envelope, or alternatively, the ultrasound coupling system comprises a frame holding the stand-off cushion, wherein the tab is connected to the frame (fig. 9 element 905 is a frame that connects the cushion element 904).
Regarding Claim 25, Fredriksen teaches that the the hollow is filled with a liquid, gel-like and/or relatively soft material (col. 9 lines 33-60 teaches gel cushion, comprising an envelope with a closed hollow).
Regarding Claim 26, Fredriksen teaches that the flexible stand-off cushion comprises an upper envelope layer and a lower envelope layer which are attached to each other (col. 9 lines 33-60 teaches gel cushion, comprising an envelope with a closed hollow).
Regarding Claim 27, Fredriksen teaches that the the upper envelope layer and the lower envelope layer are attached to each other, thereby forming an attached area for forming a closed hollow of the flexible stand-off cushion (figs. 9-16 and col. 9 lines 33-60 teaches gel cushion, comprising an envelope with a closed hollow).
Regarding Claim 34, Fredriksen teaches a frame holding the stand-off cushion, wherein the tab is connected to the frame.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent No. 6,210,336 to Fredriksen in view of U. S. Publication No. 2018/0263597 to Tchang et al. further in view of U. S. Publication No. 2017/0303894 to Scully.
Regarding Claim 23, Frederiksen and Tchang teaches all of the above claimed limitations but does not expressly teach that the tab has an adhesive region.
Scully teaches that the tab has an adhesive region (abstract and para 0110 teaches an adhesive region).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Frederiksen and Tchang with a setup such that the tab has an adhesive region as taught by Scully, since such a setup would result in easy attachment of the gel pad with subject, for better imaging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is allowed.
Claims 29, and 35-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record are U. S. Patent No. 6,210,336 to Fredriksen; U. S. Publication No. 2015/0057545 to Takagi et al.; U. S. Publication No. 2018/0263597 to Tchang et al. none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches that the upper envelope layer and the lower envelope layer are attached at predefined areas where the upper envelope area and the lower envelope layer extend beyond the flexible stand-off cushion.
Conclusion
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 SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights