DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on January 20, 2026 concerning application No. 18/196,379 filed on May 11, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant is reminded that when amending claims, all claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. See MPEP 714.II.C
Claim 1 of the claim set filed 01/20/2026 includes additional amendments that were not properly marked. Specifically, the limitation “an ultrasound beamformer that receives signals from the first biplane transducer and the second biplane transducer to generate one or more images of the brain” was not present in the prior claim set filed 05/06/2025.
The amendments filed 01/20/2026 have been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/090,316, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically regarding claim 1, prior-filed application, 18/090,316 does not specifically disclose “a first probe housing including a first biplane transducer….a second probe transducer probe housing including a second biplane transducer”. For at least these reasons the priority date of claims is the effective filing date of the current application which is May 11, 2022. See MPEP 2152.01 (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “computer is configured to measure a common mode motion of the brain tissue”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As further discussed in the rejection below, Firouzi discloses in [0087] “the processor 602 may be programmed to analyze data associated with the acoustic signal to detect and/or localize structures and/or motion in the brain”. Therefore the computer is at least configured to measure a common mode motion of the brain tissue.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the newly filed claim amendment “computer is configured to…compute a center of pulsation relative to a midline of the brain” 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 regarding the claim objections have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the claim objection of claim 17 previously set forth.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Firouzi et al. (US 20220110604, hereinafter Firouzi) in view of Michaeli (US 20030013956).
Regarding claim 1, Firouzi teaches a portable medical ultrasound device ([0075]-[0076] and fig. 1 disclose AEG device 100 which is portable. [0065] discloses the AEG device is a transcranial ultrasound platform) for imaging a condition of a brain of a patient (Abstract, [0005]) comprising:
a first transducer probe housing ([0076] and fig. 1 discloses multiple probes 104 each of which has their own housing) including a first biplane transducer ([0080] “the AEG device includes probes that are acoustic transducers”. [0092] discloses the transducer elements are configured for biplane 742 beam-steering, meaning the transducer of the probe is a biplane transducer) for generating transcranial ultrasound signals at a first scanning location for scanning of brain tissue ([0066] discloses “AEG can scan and interrogate various regions in the cranium”. [0076] and fig. 2 further disclose a probe being positioned at a first scanning location for scanning a brain compartment);
a second transducer probe housing ([0076] and fig. 1 discloses multiple probes 104 each of which has their own housing) including a second biplane transducer ([0080] “the AEG device includes probes that are acoustic transducers”. [0092] discloses the transducer elements are configured for biplane 742 beam-steering, meaning the transducer of the probe is a biplane transducer) for generating ultrasound signals at a second scanning location of brain tissue ([0066] discloses “AEG can scan and interrogate various regions in the cranium”. [0076] and fig. 2 further disclose a second probe being positioned at a second scanning location for scanning a brain compartment);
a portable housing ([0076] and fig. 1 “hub 102”), the housing having a computer in the housing ([0077] the electronic circuitry of the hub 102 is considered the computer. [0188] further discloses computer system 200 which is used with the embodiments of the invention), the computer including at least one processor ([0077] “the hub may include a processor”. Also [0078] discloses front-end electronics of the hub which are also considered part of the processor) and at least one memory ([0188] discloses the computer system includes memory 2020), and a display ([0188]-[0189] disclose the computer system includes a display device such as a monitor or touch screen), the processor controlling transmission of an ultrasound signal through a cranium with the first biplane transducer and the second biplane transducer ([0078] “AEG system can include a network of probes for active or passive sensing of brain metrics that are connected to front-end electronics. The front-end electronics may include transmit and receive circuitry”. Therefore the front-end electronics (processor) control the transmitting of ultrasound signals from the probes), the computer being configured to measure a common mode motion of the brain tissue ([0087] “the processor 602 may be programmed to analyze data associated with the acoustic signal to detect and/or localize structures and/or motion in the brain”); and
a beam transmission circuit that actuates transmission of ultrasound pulses with the first biplane transducer and the second biplane transducer ([0088]-[0089] disclose the processor generates transmit beamforming and receive beamforming and is therefore a beam transmission circuit), and an ultrasound beamformer that receives signals from the first biplane transducer and the second biplane transducer to generate one or more images of the brain ([0088]-[0089] disclose receive beamforming to process the data and [0094] discloses generating image data by processing the data), the ultrasound beamformer being communicably connected to the computer that actuates display of the one or more images of the brain on the display (since the beamforming processor is part of the processor it is communicably connected to the computer. [0079] discloses displaying the data on the display 410. [0109] disclose the data includes image data).
Firouzi does not specifically teach the computer computes a center of pulsation relative to a midline of the brain.
However,
Michaeli in a similar field of endeavor teaches a computer (the electronic circuitry of the apparatus 100 shown in fig. 2a) that computes a center of pulsation relative to the midline of the brain ([0175]-[0176] discloses measuring the distance from the probe to the nearest wall of the third ventricle which represents the center of pulsation relative to the midline of the brain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of computing a center of pulsation relative to the midline of the brain of Michaeli to the computer of Firouzi to allow for the predictable results of improving the diagnosis of a neurological condition by providing an additional metric.
Regarding claim 3, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches the first biplane transducer and second biplane transducer ([0004] disclose the system is configured for imaging the cranium. [0092] discloses the transducer elements are configured for biplane 742 beam-steering, meaning the transducer is a biplane transducer array. [0080] discloses the device includes multiple probes that are acoustic transducers such as ultrasound transducers. Therefore the system includes multiple probes that each comprise a biplane transducer array).
Regarding claim 7, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches the display comprises a touchscreen ([0188]-[0189] disclose the computer system includes a display device such as a monitor or touch screen).
Regarding claim 8, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 7, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches the computer acts in response to an input from the touchscreen display ([0189] discloses user input interface 2050 which includes the touchscreen and is used for controlling the computing device to provide output).
Regarding claim 15, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 7, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches the computer receives an input from a keyboard control panel or virtual control panel ([0189 discloses receiving input from a keyboard).
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 20140114190, hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 2, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Firouzi in view of Michaeli does not specifically teach the at least one memory is a core memory, the computer further comprising a graphics processor connected to the core memory in the portable housing.
However,
Chiang in a similar field of endeavor teaches the at least one memory is a core memory, the device further comprising a graphics processor connected to the core memory ([fig. 17 shows the computer I/O and graphics chipset 1704 is connected to the core memory 1122 in the computer 106, the graphics chipset is considered the graphics processor) in the portable housing (fig. 1 shows the computer 106 is in the portable housing 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computer disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli to have the at least one memory be a core memory, the computer further comprising a graphics processor connected to the core memory in the portable housing in order to process the data at a faster rate, which would increase efficiency of the procedure and provide faster results.
Regarding claim 10, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 8, as set forth above. Firouzi in view of Michaeli does not specifically teach the input corresponds to a press gesture against the touchscreen display.
However,
Chiang in a similar field of endeavor teaches the input corresponds to a press gesture against the touchscreen display ([0007] discloses one of the gestures against the touchscreen display includes a press gesture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli to have the input correspond to a press gesture against the touchscreen display in order to allow for a plurality of different gestures to be used to control the computer, thereby increasing the number of controls the user can activate.
Claim(s) 4-6, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abraham (US 20140039277).
Regarding claim 4, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches a transducer position control device ([0092] discloses controlling the steering using mechanical scanning such as a motorized holder).
Firouzi in view of Michaeli does not specifically teach a transducer position control device having a plurality of linear actuators to adjust at least a tilt angle within each transducer probe housing.
However,
Abraham in a similar field of endeavor teaches a transducer position control device ([0084] discloses “a wireless transceiver and antenna for controlling the motor”, the motors are considered the transducer position control device) having a plurality of linear actuators to adjust at least a tilt angle within the transducer probe housing ([0091] discloses motors 156 which control the tilt of the transducer as seen in fig. 1F. [0089], “linear motors may move small flexible rods carrying, for example, a transducer array”, the linear motors are considered the linear actuators).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli to have the transducer position control device have a plurality of linear actuators to adjust at least a tilt angle within each transducer probe housing in order to allow for the ultrasound device to transmit ultrasound signals to the correct location even if an untrained user is using the device, as recognized by Abraham (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham teaches the device of claim 4, as set forth above. Abraham further teaches a backplane on which the transducer position control device is mounted (fig. 1F shows the housing backplane the motors (position control device) are mounted).
Regarding claim 6, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham teaches the device of claim 4, as set forth above. Abraham further teaches the transducer control device includes at least three contact points to control a central axis beam control direction of the transducer ([0091] discloses fig. 1G which includes four anchor points on the transducer 154 and “when all four anchor points move simultaneously in the same z axis direction, the plate 154 moves toward or away from the skin surface”, meaning there is four contact points to control a central axis beam control direction of the transducer array. Applying the teaching of Abraham would result in the central axis beam control direction of each biplane transducer being controlled).
Regarding claim 13, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham teaches the device of claim 4, as set forth above. Abraham further teaches a computer be programmed to control the transducer control device ([0098] discloses “transceiver 205 may receive a data signal from a work station, demodulate the signal and output…to transducer controller 210”, [0101] “controller 210 which then actuates motors”. The work station is considered the computer which is programmed to control the transducer control device to move the transducer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Abraham to have the computer be programmed to control the transducer control device in order to allow for the position of the transducer to be controlled from a remote location, thereby allowing for the system to be used by an untrained individual.
Regarding claim 17, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham teaches the device of claim 4, as set forth above. Abraham further teaches the transducer control device comprises a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) actuator ([0057] discloses the telescoping screws are driven by micro-motors. The Micro-motors are considered to be MEMS actuators).
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bar-Zion et al. (US 20170105700, hereinafter Bar-Zion).
Regarding claim 9, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 8, as set forth above. Firouzi in view of Michaeli does not specifically teach the computer receives the input from the touchscreen display to control an operation of a transducer position control device.
However,
Bar-Zion in a similar field of endeavor teaches the computer receives the input from the touchscreen display to control an operation of a transducer position control device ([0076] discloses a user can operate the controller 20 by way of an input device which includes a touch screen to perform instructions such as a begin or stop operation, operating parameters, or other instructions. These operations are seen as controlling an operation of the device controller 240 (position control device) such as controlling the actuators to adjust the position of the transducer based on the operating parameters and controller the position control device to start/stop, thereby controlling an operation of a transducer position control device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli to have the computer receive the input from the touchscreen display to control an operation of a transducer position control device in order to allow for the user to control the position of the transducer array.
Regarding claim 11, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Bar-Zion teaches the device of claim 9, as set forth above. Bar-Zion further teaches the computer receives a second input from the touchscreen display to manually adjust the tilt angle ([0136] discloses the tilt actuator may be operated by a user via a wired or wireless communication with device controller 240. By inputting commands to the device controller 240, the user is controlling the tilt actuators which in turn tilt the ultrasound transducer 230).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 20140114190, hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 14, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham teaches the device of claim 13, as set forth above. Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham does not specifically teach the computer performs at least one measurement on an ultrasound image based at least in part on a first location of a first cursor on the display.
However,
Chiang in a similar field of endeavor teaches the computer performs at least one measurement on an ultrasound image based at least in part on a first location of a first cursor on the display (Claim 14 discloses, “performing by the computer at least one measurement on the ultrasound image based at least in part on the first cursor at the first location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham to have the computer performs at least one measurement on an ultrasound image based at least in part on a first location of a first cursor on the display in order to allow the user to select which location of the image they want measurements to be taken of, thereby ensuring the measurements are acquired from the correct location.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lundberg et al. (US 20050281444, hereinafter Lundberg).
Regarding claim 16, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham teaches the device of claim 4, as set forth above. Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham does not specifically teach the display shows a first image of a region of the brain and a second image of the region of the brain simultaneously, and wherein the transducer position control device simultaneously actuates a change in both the first image and the second image.
However,
Lundberg in a similar field of endeavor teaches the display shows a first image of an organ and a second image of the organ simultaneously (fig. 1 shows the computer display 124 displays multiple views of the heart simultaneously. Also display 400 in fig. 4 shows that multiple views of the heart are displayed simultaneously), and wherein the transducer position control device simultaneously actuates a change in both the first image and the second image ([0047] discloses the quadrants of display 400 show live images of the patient, meaning when the system 100 causes the tilt and rotation of the scan planes to change the images corresponding to the scan planes will also simultaneously change. [0033] discloses the system 100 controls the tilt of the planes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Abraham to have the display show a first image of a region of the brain and a second image of the region of the brain simultaneously, and wherein the transducer position control device simultaneously actuates a change in both the first image and the second image in order to show the most recent images of the patient so the user can timely review the images, thereby making the device more efficient and allow the user to perform analysis more quickly.
Claim(s) 12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perrey et al. (US 20180125460, hereinafter Perrey).
Regarding claim 12, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches operating the transducer arrays by the ultrasound beamformer processing circuit in the portable housing ([0088]-[0089] disclose the processor generates transmit beamforming and is therefore an ultrasound beamformer processing circuit that operates the transducer arrays in the portable housing) and the portable housing comprises a tablet ([0189] discloses the computer includes a user interface which includes a touch screen, therefore the portable housing comprises a tablet).
Firouzi in view of Michaeli does not specifically teach each biplane transducer comprises a plurality of transducer arrays and a multiplexing circuit to automatically switch between arrays in response to a programmed control signal from a controller.
However,
Perrey in a similar field of endeavor teaches the biplane transducer comprises a plurality of transducer arrays ([0021] “the transducer array 112 may include an array of 128 transducer elements 124 along the azimuth plane 206 and along the elevation plane 208”, the elements along each of the planes is considered the plurality of transducer arrays) and a multiplexing circuit to automatically switch between arrays in response to a programmed control signal from a controller ([0020] discloses electronics 110 (multiplexing circuit) which are used to control the switching of the transducer elements. [0021] further discloses control circuit 136 controls the transmitting of signals, therefore the switching occurs in response to a programmed control signal from a controller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli to have each biplane transducer comprises a plurality of transducer arrays and a multiplexing circuit to automatically switch between arrays in response to a programmed control signal from a controller in order to increase the resolution of the obtained image data, thereby improving the quality of the device.
Regarding claim 18, Firouzi in view of Michaeli teaches the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Firouzi in view of Michaeli does not specifically teach the processor is programmed to control transmission of a therapeutic ultrasound signal through the cranium.
However,
Perrey in a similar field of endeavor teaches a processor programmed to control transmission of a therapeutic ultrasound signal through the cranium ([0024] discloses the transducer elements 124 emit ultrasonic signals into a body such as the brain (through the cranium), where “the ultrasonic signals may be used…for therapy”. [0021] discloses the controller circuit 136 control the acquisition settings of the ultrasonic pulses emitted by the transducer elements 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli to have the known technique of having the processor be programmed to control transmission of a therapeutic ultrasound signal through the cranium in order to allow for the predictable results of having an ultrasound system that can provide both imaging and therapy, thereby making the system for versatile.
Regarding claim 19, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Perrey teaches the device of claim 18, as set forth above. Firouzi further teaches each biplane transducer generates at least one image of moving tissue within the cranium ([0094] discloses the received signals are used for generating image data of the brain. [0059] further discloses the anatomical structure being imaged includes a blood vessel which contains blood which is a moving tissue).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Perrey as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Bar-Zion et al. (US 20170105700, hereinafter Bar-Zion).
Regarding claim 20, Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Perrey teaches the device of claim 18, as set forth above. Perrey further teaches at least one of the biplane transducers generates a ultrasound pulse to a selected region of the brain to stimulate neuron transport ([0030] discloses the imaging system performed bi-plane imaging, meaning the probe is a bi-plane probe. [0024] discloses the transducer elements emit ultrasonic signals into the brain for therapy. By emitting ultrasound pulses to a region of the brain the ultrasonic signals are stimulating neuron transport).
Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Perrey does not specifically teach the generated ultrasound pulse is a focused ultrasound pulse.
However,
Abraham in a Bar-Zion in a similar field of endeavor teaches generating a focus ultrasound pulse to a selected location (Abstract, “the ultrasonic transducer elements are operable to steer and focus an ultrasound beam to a selectable location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device disclosed by Firouzi in view of Michaeli and Perrey to have the generated ultrasound pulse be a focused ultrasound pulse in order to ensure that the desired location is receiving the therapeutic treatment, thereby making the system for accurate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798