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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Alphen et al (US Pub 2017/0258445 -cited by applicant) in view of Smith et al (US Pub 2014/0269209).
Re claim 1: Van Alphen discloses an ultrasound probe comprising:
a body comprising a single imaging end and a single non-imaging end (fig 8, 0033, 0034; see the probe body 10; wherein arrays can be positioned side by side within a single imaging distal end);
a first array comprising a first plurality of transducer elements disposed on the imaging end [0034, figs 8, 9A; see array 80H at the distal end];
a second array comprising a second plurality of transducer elements disposed on the imaging end, wherein each the first array and the second array are longitudinally aligned with each other and separated by a colinear space free of elements [0034, figs 8, 9A; see array 80L at the distal end aligned with first array 80H, and separated from array 80H by colinear space without any elements];
a circuit connected to the first plurality of transducer elements and the second plurality of transducer elements; wherein the circuit is capable of activating, in a mutually exclusive manner, the first plurality of transducer elements and the second plurality of transducer elements [0034, fig 8; see circuit 84 wherein the arrays are independently activated manually or automatically].
Van Alphen discloses all features including an arrangement (fig 8) with two distal ends separated by a colinear spacing that is outside the body of the probe and another arrangement where arrays are disposed in a single distal imaging end, but does not disclose whether or not there is a colinear space between the arrays in this alternative arrangement. However, Smith teaches of an imaging probe with a plurality of arrays on a single imaging end of the probe wherein the arrays are separated by a colinear spacing [0057; see the arrays 12A-C inside probe housing 14]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Van Alphen, to have a spacing between the arrays as taught by Smith, as such an arrangement is well known and would facilitate securing the arrays within the housing.
Re claim 2: Van Alphen discloses the first array forms a first beam from a first surface and the second array forms a second beam from a second surface, where the probe includes a unitary lens covering both surfaces [0035, fig 9A; see the array having a unitary lens covering both surfaces].
Re claim 3: Van Alphen discloses the imaging end comprises an imaging contact surface and both the first array and the second array are in substantially the same plane, parallel to the imaging contact surface (figs 8, 9A; see the arrays disposed such that the beams are directed forward/distally, thereby being arranged in substantially the same plane parallel to the contact surface (note that fig 8 arrays are at a slight angle but are still directed forward/distally such that they are “substantially” in the same plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the probe)).
Re claim 4: Van Alphen discloses the circuit is communicatively coupled to a mode selection input, the circuit receiving mode selection input to activate a first mode, in which signals are transmitted only by the first plurality of transducer elements and a second mode, in which signals are transmitted only by the second plurality of transducer elements [0034, 0037; se that the arrays are activated separately and in different modes via mode selection input].
Re claim 5: Van Alphen discloses a pitch of the second array is substantially the same size as the pitch in the first array (figs 8, 9A; see the pitch of the arrays 80H/80L and also of SXTL).
Re claim 6: Van Alphen discloses the circuit is a multiplex circuit and activates the second plurality of transducer elements starting from a start element which is neither 0 nor 1 [0027, 0028; see multiplexer 50 for microbeamformer wherein each channel controls one desired element].
Re claim 7: Van Alphen discloses the first array produces a high frequency bandwidth and the second array produces a low frequency bandwidth [0034; see high frequency array 80H and low frequency array 80L].
Re claim 8: Van Alphen discloses the first array is linear and the second array is a phased-array [0018; see the linear and phased arrays].
Re claim 9: Van Alphen discloses the first plurality of transducer elements is greater in number than the second plurality of transducer elements [0018, 0035; see 1D and 2D arrangements as well as the different shapes, sizes, ratios, types, thereby indicating different numbers of elements as desired]
Re claim 10: Van Alphen discloses the probe includes a mode selection input selected from the group consisting of a depth input by an operator, an Al-determined preset selection, an operator selected preset selection, and a manual operator input by way of a button on the probe, a GUI interaction, or an audio command [0037; see the button on the probe for manual input].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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.
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 MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/MICHAEL T ROZANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797