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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2023 and 11/22/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings (figs. 1, 4, & 7) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) for being unsatisfactorily reproducible. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. Examiner is requesting that the fainter lines in at least figs. 1, 4, & 7 be made darker and more well-defined.
The drawings (figs. 2, 4, 5, & 8) are objected to because unlabeled non-descriptive representations are impermissible under 37 CFR 1.83(a) which states (bold for emphasis):
(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
Element(s) “38” & “40” (IC) in fig. 2 and “200” (temperature sensor) in each of figs. 4-5 & 8 need appropriate legends in the form of descriptive text labels in addition to any reference characters already present. Empty or not labeled rectangular boxes and non-descriptive representations of features are not descriptive, and therefore incomplete. The descriptive text labels should contain as few words as possible. See also 37 CFR 1.84(n) (conventional symbols), 1.84(o) (required descriptive legends), & 1.84(p) (standards for the text labels), and MPEP § 608.02(b)(II)(¶ 6.22) (“descriptive text label”). Appropriate Correction is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
The following title is suggested: “ULTRASOUND PROBE WITH HEAT TRANSFER STRUCTURE”.
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.
Instant claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference patented claim(s) 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12343216.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons put forth in the table below:
One-Way Double Patenting Analysis Table
18/233,700
(instant)
US12343216B2
(reference)
Obviousness Analysis of instant claim over reference claim
1
9
or
10 (dependent claims 11, 12)
An ultrasound probe (1. “An ultrasound probe”), comprising:
a transducer array (1. “a transducer array”); an electronic circuit provided behind the transducer array and electrically connected to the transducer array (1. “an electronic circuit provided behind the transducer array and electrically connected to the transducer array”); and a backing provided behind the electronic circuit and configured to attenuate ultrasound waves from the transducer array (1. “a first backing provided behind the electronic circuit and configured to attenuate ultrasound waves from the transducer array; and a second backing provided behind the first backing and configured to further attenuate the ultrasound waves from the transducer array, wherein assuming that a direction in which the transducer array”), wherein assuming that a direction in which the transducer array, the electronic circuit, and the backing are arranged is defined as a Z direction, a direction perpendicular to the Z direction is defined as an X direction, and a direction perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction is defined as a Y direction (1. “wherein assuming that a direction in which the transducer array, the electronic circuit, the first backing, and the second backing are arranged is defined as a Z direction, a direction perpendicular to the Z direction is defined as an X direction, and a direction perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction is defined as a Y direction”), in the backing, both of Z-direction thermal conductivity and Y-direction thermal conductivity are higher than X-direction thermal conductivity (“in the second backing, both of Z-direction thermal conductivity and Y-direction thermal conductivity are higher than X-direction thermal conductivity”), the backing has two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction (8. “wherein the second backing has two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction”), and a temperature sensor is arranged on at least one of the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction (9. “a temperature sensor that is arranged on at least one of the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction”; alternatively 10. “a temperature sensor that is arranged on at least one of the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction”).
The Examiner notes: Indistinctly recites most limitations, differences being merely nominal nomenclatural differences or grammatical variations not amounting to patentable distinction.
2
12
The ultrasound probe according to claim 1, including a heat absorbing member having two inner surfaces joined to the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction (8. “a heat absorbing member having two inner surfaces joined to the two outer surfaces of the surfaces intersecting the Y direction”), and the temperature sensor is spaced from the heat absorbing member (11 “wherein the heat absorbing member has a receiving space in which the temperature sensor is received"; and 12 “wherein the temperature sensor is spaced from an inner surface of the receiving space”).
The Examiner notes: Indistinctly recites most limitations, differences being merely nominal nomenclatural differences or grammatical variations not amounting to patentable distinction, Examiner emphasizing that the temperature sensor spaced from the inner surface of the receiving space of the heat absorbing member enables an ordinary artisan to at once envisaged the temperature sensor spaced from the heat absorbing member.
3
12
The ultrasound probe according to claim 2,
wherein the heat absorbing member has a receiving space in which the temperature sensor is received, and the temperature sensor is spaced from the inner surface of the receiving space (11 “wherein the heat absorbing member has a receiving space in which the temperature sensor is received"; and 12 “wherein the temperature sensor is spaced from an inner surface of the receiving space”).
Dependent claim(s) of the aforementioned reference claim(s) likewise form the basis for double patenting rejection.
Instant claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over reference patented claim(s) 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12343215.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons put forth in the table below:
One-Way Double Patenting Analysis Table
18/233,700
(instant)
US12343215B2
(reference)
Obviousness Analysis of instant claim over reference claim
1
14 (dependent claims 15-17)
An ultrasound probe (1. “An ultrasound probe”), comprising:
a transducer array (1. “a transducer array”); an electronic circuit provided behind the transducer array and electrically connected to the transducer array (1. “an electronic circuit provided behind the transducer array and electrically connected to the transducer array”); and a backing provided behind the electronic circuit and configured to attenuate ultrasound waves from the transducer array (“a backing provided behind the electronic circuit and configured to attenuate ultrasound waves from the transducer array”), wherein assuming that a direction in which the transducer array, the electronic circuit, and the backing are arranged is defined as a Z direction, a direction perpendicular to the Z direction is defined as an X direction, and a direction perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction is defined as a Y direction, in the backing, both of Z-direction thermal conductivity and Y-direction thermal conductivity are higher than X-direction thermal conductivity, the backing has two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction (“wherein assuming that a direction in which the transducer array, the electronic circuit, and the backing are arranged is defined as a Z direction, a direction perpendicular to the Z direction is defined as an X direction, and a direction perpendicular to the Z direction and the X direction is defined as a Y direction, in the backing, both of Z-direction thermal conductivity and Y-direction thermal conductivity are higher than X-direction thermal conductivity, the backing has two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction, and the shell head has two inner surfaces joined to the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction”), and a temperature sensor is arranged on at least one of the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction (14. “a temperature sensor arranged on at least one of the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction”).
The Examiner notes: Indistinctly recites most limitations, differences being merely nominal nomenclatural differences or grammatical variations not amounting to patentable distinction.
2
15
The ultrasound probe according to claim 1, including a heat absorbing member having two inner surfaces joined to the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction, and the temperature sensor is spaced from the heat absorbing member (15. “a heat absorbing member having two inner surfaces joined to the two outer surfaces intersecting the Y direction, and the temperature sensor is spaced from the heat absorbing member”).
3
16
The ultrasound probe according to claim 2,
wherein the heat absorbing member has a receiving space in which the temperature sensor is received, and the temperature sensor is spaced from the inner surface of the receiving space (16. “the heat absorbing member has a receiving space in which the temperature sensor is received, and the temperature sensor is spaced from an inner surface of the receiving space”).
4
17
The ultrasound probe according to claim 1,
wherein the outer surface on which the temperature sensor is arranged has an upper end portion located near the electronic circuit, and a lower end portion located away from the electronic circuit, and the temperature sensor is arranged at the lower end portion (17. “wherein the outer surface on which the temperature sensor is arranged has an upper end portion located near the electronic circuit, and a lower end portion located away from the electronic circuit, and the temperature sensor is arranged at the lower end portion”).
Dependent claim(s) of the aforementioned reference claim(s) likewise form the basis for double patenting rejection.
The Double Patenting Rejections will not be held in abeyance. See MPEP § 804 & 714.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are would be allowable if proper terminal disclaimer(s) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is/are used to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action (see Double Patenting Rejections for details). Claim(s) 5 is/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 conditionally dependent (i.e., dependent upon overcoming the double patenting rejections) allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1,
when this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record (see MPEP § 1302.14(I)). For now, the Examiner preliminary notes that to meet the claim limitations requires using the invention as a roadmap to find prior art and then further as a blueprint to reconstruct the claimed invention as a whole therefrom requiring more than ordinary skill and knowledge in the art at the time the invention was filed to hindsightly so recreate. See Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See succinct summary of most pertinent prior art in the Conclusion.
Dependent claims thereof are likewise indicated as conditionally allowable, except see note above with regards to dependent claim 5 being merely objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner. The Examiner notes in particular the prior art pertaining to: thermal conductivity includes JP 2006129965 A “Ogawa” which teaches a generally preferential movement of heat outward and down (see fig. 5; see also explanation of 2D array applicability in last paragraph of page 9 of translation); temperature sensors includes US 20090213897 A1 “Amemiya” which has temperatures sensors embedded in the backing (see fig. 2) and “US 20190183459 A1” which has a thermistor on a metal film where the metal film is on the face of the backing (see fig. 3) and US 20080077017 A1 “Hyuga” which teaches embedding a temperature sensor in the backing layer or on surface thereof which is channeling the heat; and electronic circuit provided (directly) behind the transducer array includes US 20130285174 A1 “Sako” (see fig. 2; also teaches first & second backing layers) and US 20150099978 A1 “Davidsen” (see fig. 1, ASIC 160 between 2D array and backing 165; [0032] mentions temperature monitoring without details). However, no combination of the prior art of record renders obvious the claimed invention.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 15NOV2025