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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/26 has been entered.
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 1-6 and 8-10 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 -previously cited).
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 high frequency first array comprising a first plurality of transducer elements and a first elevation center, disposed on the imaging end [0034, figs 8, 9A; see array 80H at the distal end in the alternative configuration of figure 8 of high and low frequency arrays side-by-side in the distal end of a probe “with one distal end” (in contrast to the probe with two distal ends), wherein this alternative configuration and the configuration of figure 9A show the array at a first elevation center];
a low frequency second array comprising a second plurality of transducer elements and a different second elevation center, disposed on the imaging end, wherein each of the arrays are longitudinally aligned with each other and separated by a colinear space free of elements and have respective parallel longitudinal axes [0034, figs 8; see array 80L at the distal end aligned with first array 80H in the alternative configuration of figure 8 of high and low frequency arrays side-by-side in the distal end of a probe “with one distal end”, wherein this alternative configuration and the configuration of figure 9A show the array at a second elevation center with a longitudinal axis parallel to that of the other array];
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, another arrangement where arrays are disposed in a single distal imaging end, and an arrangement of the two arrays disposed adjacent one another with parallel axis (fig 9A), but does not disclose whether or not there is a colinear space between the arrays in the 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 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 filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite a high frequency array and low frequency array that have different elevation centers and have respective longitudinal axes that are parallel with a lateral space separating the arrays. While Applicant argues that these features are not met by the applied art, the Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection. To summarize, Van Alphen discloses a probe with a high frequency array and a low frequency array each located side-by-side within the housing in one distal end (this is an alternative to the Figure 8 arrangement described in [0034]) and also discloses another arrangement with both arrays disposed within the housing in a single distal end (figure 9A). In the first case, there is no description as to whether or not there is a spacing between the arrays when located side-by-side in one distal end and, in the second case, figure 9A shows that there is not a spacing between the arrays. The skilled artisan would find it obvious to modify Van Alphen in the first case or in the second case, to configure a space between the arrays as taught by Smith.
Applicant argues that Smith teaches of transducers that are the same frequency and mounted at precise angles, which is required for MAUI. While this is not disputed, the rejection relies on Van Alphen to teach the high frequency array and the low frequency array. The modification proposes only to demonstrate that the skilled artisan would find it obvious to configure a lateral spacing between the two arrays in the configuration of Van Alphen where the arrays are within the housing in “one distal end” (an alternative arrangement of Van Alphen’s figure 8) or in the configuration of Van Alphen where the arrays are shown as being adjacent one another (figure 9A). Therefore, it is not significant that Smith teaches the transducers are the same frequency or that they are mounted at precise angles because the rejection does not modify Van Alphen to replace the type of transducer or the mounting arrangement. It is noted that the claimed “lateral space”, while a limitation set forth in the claim, does not appear to have any special benefit over an arrangement of dual arrays without the spacing. Examiner was unable to locate any criticality to have a spacing in the instant specification or in the submitted Affidavit and this gives further credence to the finding of obviousness.
In regard Van Alphen’s Figure 8, Applicant recites [0034] with the “two distal ends”. The Examiner agrees this is disclosed, but Van Alphen is not limited to this disclosure. Applicant fails to note that in same paragraph [0034], it is explicitly recited that the arrays may alternatively be disposed side-by-side in a probe with “one distal end”. This clearly contrasts with the arrangement of two distal ends that Applicant refers to. It is apparent that while the two distal ends are angled (thereby not having arrays with parallel longitudinal axes), the alternative arrangement with one distal end would not be angled. The purpose of the angled of the two distal ends is to have the face of an array uniformly press against the imaged surface in an alternatingly manner to perform both high and low frequency imaging [0034]. However, when side-by-side in one distal end, there is no reason that they arrays would be angled and the arrays would be angled as it is necessary for the ultrasound to be transmitted through the same distal end. Therefore, in Van Alphen’s alternative configuration of one distal end of Figure 8, the arrays have longitudinal axes that are parallel. Further, they occupy different space within the distal end such that each array has a different elevation center. This arrangement only lacks disclosure of a spacing between the arrays, and this is taught by Smith.
Turning to Van Alphen’s Fig 9A which does have arrays with parallel longitudinal axes in a single distal end, Applicant argues that there is no lateral space between the arrays. The Examiner agrees but notes that the proposed modification with Smith meets the claimed limitation. Applicant also asserts that Fig 9A only shows a single elevation due to Fig 9A and 9B showing concentric arrays. While the elevation center for the arrays may be the same if the arrays were concentric, the Examiner does not find any reference to the arrays being concentric in any way. In fact, Figure 9B shows a rectangular arrangement with high frequency array located in the center (which is different from concentric) with low frequency arrays disposed on the sides. This arrangement shows high and low frequency arrays with different elevation centers. This arrangement also only lacks disclosure of a spacing between the arrays, and this is taught by Smith.
The Examiner appreciates the submission of the Affidavit submitted by Mr. Rahardja. The Affidavit sets forth the same positions as the Applicant arguments and asserts that the invention Clarius PAL is unique as it allows use of a single probe without having to switch probes and that Van Alphen’s probe is no different than using two separate scanner units (see (9) and (12)). However, Examiner finds that what is set forth in the claims is met by the 103 rejection. Van Alphen explicitly discloses a single probe with one distal end, in contrast to the probe with two distal ends (which is also a single probe), and this is not mentioned by Applicant. Mr. Rahardja’s assertion (see (13)) that Van Alphen’s Fig 9A and 9B has concentric arrays is not persuasive as described above. Since the arrays are not actually concentric but are rather rows of high frequency arrays in the center and side arrays of low frequency, the limitation of different elevation centers is met. Even if the arrangement of high frequency elements in the center weakens overall transmission as stated in (15), it is not seen weakening is relevant when the limitation regarding the different elevation centers is met. The Examiner also acknowledges that Mr. Rahardja does not have knowledge of any commercial product having the arrangement of Figs 9A and 9B of Van Alphen. However, the reliance on Van Alphen’s disclosure is considered proper as the disclosure is made before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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
Prosecution Insights