DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 11/04/2025 concerning application no. 18/292,381 filed on 01/26/2024.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are pending (Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration).
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “signal interface”, “mounting interface”, “signal unit”, and “intermediate segment”, Applicant argues that they do not intend for the 112(f) invocation. For each of the elements, Applicant then cites the specification to describe the elements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mere desire or intention does not provide consideration in a 112(f) analysis. The invocation of a 112(f) interpretation is based on the completion of a 3-prong test. That test requires: “(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.”1 Here, the elements meet the 3 prong test. Each of the elements utilize a generic placeholder such as “interface”, “unit”, or “segment”. Therefore, prong 1 of the test is met. Each of the elements is modified by functional language like “adapted to transmit signals” in the case of the “signal interface”, “adapted to transmit a mechanical load…adapted to connect” in the case of the “mounting interface”, “adapted for generating, processing, and/or analyzing” in the case of the “signal unit”, and “adapted to releasably connect” in the case of intermediate segment. Therefore, prong 2 of the test is met. Finally, none of the elements have any sufficient structure, material or acts for the performing of their claimed functions. This lack of sufficient structure means that prong 3 is met. Overall, since the three prong test is met, 112(f) interpretation must be invoked.
Examiner further notes that the recited paragraphs of the specification are assessed following a 112(f) invocation. The structure disclosed in the specification cannot be imported into the reading of the claims without the 112(f) invocation as Applicant appears to attempt. Finally, with the “signal unit” and “intermediate segment”, Applicant’s cited specification sections do not provide a corresponding structure for the elements and are instead disclosing further operability or function.
Examiner respectfully maintains the 112(f) invocation.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one signal interface connected with the at least one transducer element and adapted to transmit signals…” in claims 1, 5, 9, and 11: Paragraph 0083 discloses “The side-surfaces of the housing 4 each include a mechanical interface 7, i.e. correspondingly formed protrusions or recesses, each of which includes a signal interface 6 being represented by a plurality of electrical contacts” and paragraph 0085 discloses “A central probe segment 2 features a handle portion 9 that in turn comprises an internal signal unit 11, a signal interface (not indicated) for providing a data connection to an external unit or device, and a tracking marker array 14”.
“at least one mounting interface on the housing, that is adapted to transmit a mechanical load to and from the housing, and is adapted to connect…” in claims 1 and 6: Paragraph 0016 discloses “For example, the probe segments may be coupled to each other via any sort of positive fit and/or force fit provided by the corresponding mounting interfaces. For example, a mounting interface of one probe segment is configured as dovetail-recess, whereas a mounting interface of another probe segment is configured as a corresponding dovetail-protrusion adapted to be inserted into the dovetail-recess, such that the corresponding probe segments can be released from each other again only by moving the dovetail-protrusion out of the dovetail-recess. Moreover, corresponding mounting interfaces may provide a magnetic force to hold corresponding probe segments together. It is also conceivable that the mounting interfaces provide some sort of snap-in locking mechanism to bind probe segments together”.
“a signal unit connected with the signal interface of at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, the signal unit being adapted for generating, processing and/or analyzing” in claims 1, 8, and 11-12: A review of the original specification does not appear to set forth a corresponding structure for the claimed “signal unit”.
“an intermediate segment adapted to releasably connect…” in claim 9: A review of the original specification does not appear to set forth a corresponding structure for the claimed “intermediate segment”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites “at least one digital or physical identification feature”. While paragraph 0035 discloses the use of a identification feature, the specification fails to disclose that the feature is digital or physical. Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose what those identification features are in the digital or physical contexts. The specification provides no elaboration on the form of the identification features and how they operate in conjunction with the ultrasound probe assembly according to a physical or digital form. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 12 recites “the at least one property of emission characteristics and/or reception characteristics being defined with respect to a point of reference defined at a predefined spatial position with respect to the ultrasound probe assembly or a tracking marker of the ultrasound probe assembly”. While paragraphs 0038-39, 0058, and 0085 disclose spatial position, the specification fails to disclose that these spatial positions are predefined. Furthermore, the specification fails to establish that they are predefined with respect to the ultrasound probe assembly or a tracking marker. In addition to the “predefined” aspect, the specification fails to disclose properties that are with respect to a point of reference that is defined at a predefined spatial position. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “signal unit” (See claims 1, 8, and 11-12) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structural features or components are needed to satisfy this claimed “signal unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the Office is considering a central processing unit (CPU) as a “signal unit”.
Claim limitation “intermediate segment” (See claim 9) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structural features or components are needed to satisfy this claimed “intermediate segment”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the Office is considering a brace and a fastener as an “intermediate segment”.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eelbode (PGPUB No. US 2013/0294198) in view of Taffler (PGPUB No. US 2021/0106315).
Regarding claim 1, Eelbode teaches an ultrasound probe assembly for emitting and/or receiving ultrasound waves, comprising:
a plurality of selectively and mechanically interconnectable probe segments (Fig. 4 shows the composite transducer element that is made up of the interlocking transducer elements. Paragraph 0067 teaches that they are connected in a detachable manner via click-fit means), wherein each of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments comprises:
a housing (Figs. 1-8 show housing);
at least one transducer element that is at least partially received in the housing and is adapted to convert electrical energy into sound energy and/or to convert sound energy into electrical energy (Paragraph 0002 teaches that a transducer consists of a piezo crystal which can generate an ultrasonic sound wave by means of an electrical voltage and can, conversely, transform such an ultrasonic sound wave into a voltage and used to transmit and receive ultrasound waves. See Figs. 1-8);
at least one signal interface connected with the at least one transducer element and adapted to transmit signals corresponding to the emitted and/or received ultrasound waves (Paragraph 0003 teaches that the transducer element is coupled to the echoscope via the connector and used in the processing the collected reflection values for the formation of images. Paragraph 0061 teaches that the connector is connected to the transducers and to the echoscope); and
at least one mounting interface on the housing, that is adapted to transmit a mechanical load to and from the housing, and is adapted to connect with a corresponding mounting interface of a similar interconnectable probe segment (Abstract teaches that the first and second transducer elements are detachably connected to one another in at least two positions. Figs. 2-4 show the connection between the elements. Paragraphs 0033-0036 teaches the transducer elements can be detachably connected to one another by means of a holder element for holding the various transducer elements. Transducer elements are detachably connectable to one another by means of a sliding connection. Paragraphs 0038-43 provide teaching of a click fit connection for the transducer elements); and
a signal unit connected with the signal interface of at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, the signal unit being adapted for generating, processing and/or analyzing the signals (Paragraph 0003 teaches a transducer element is coupled to an echoscope by means of a connector, which echoscope ensures that the sound waves to be transmitted are generated by the transducers and which receives the measured values of the reflection via the transducer element and processes these to form images which can be interpreted by the user); and,
wherein the signal interfaces of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments are adapted to communicate with each other to transmit the signals corresponding to the emitted and/or received ultrasound waves mutually between the plurality of interconnectable probe segments (Paragraph 0002 teaches that a transducer consists of a piezo crystal which can generate an ultrasonic sound wave by means of an electrical voltage and can, conversely, transform such an ultrasonic sound wave into a voltage and used to transmit and receive ultrasound waves. Paragraph 0003 teaches that the transducer element is coupled to the echoscope via the connector and used in the processing the collected reflection values for the formation of images. Paragraph 0061 teaches that the connector is connected to the transducers and to the echoscope. See Fig. 1. Paragraph 0059 teaches the operation of the transducer elements such that they operate together).
However, Eelbode is silent regarding an ultrasound probe assembly, between the plurality of interconnectable probe segments and the signal unit.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding modular probe design, Taffler teaches an ultrasound probe,
a signal unit connected with the signal interface of at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, the signal unit being adapted for generating, processing and/or analyzing the signals; wherein the signal interfaces of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments are adapted to communicate with each other to transmit the signals corresponding to the emitted and/or received ultrasound waves mutually between the plurality of interconnectable probe segments and between the plurality of interconnectable probe segments and the signal unit (Paragraph 0014 teaches the use of a common interface that provides optical or electrical connection that provides drive and receive control over the ultrasonic transducers that may be controlled and operated and powered via the signals. The interface my allow for electrical connections to be daisy chained between ultrasonic transducer modules or have electrical connection between the ultrasonic transducer modules and the common backplane. Fig. 3 shows intercommunication between the transducers).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eelbode with Taffler’s teaching of the facilitation of communication between the transducers. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve resolution of the transducer array (Paragraph 0033 of Taffler). Furthermore, the modification allows for multiple uses and adjustment of the probe for differing situations (Paragraph 0001 of Taffler).
Regarding claim 2, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 1, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, wherein each one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments comprises a plurality of transducer elements disposed in a linear arrangement or in a two-dimensional arrangement, to define at least one of:
a planar probe surface; a one-dimensionally curved probe surface; and/or a two-dimensionally curved probe surface (Fig. 4 shows the transducer elements with the rows of transducers).
Regarding claim 3, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 2, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, wherein at least one first one of the plurality of transducer elements is adapted to or controlled to convert electrical energy into sound energy, and at least one second one of the plurality of transducer elements is adapted to or controlled to convert sound energy into electrical energy (Paragraph 0002 teaches that a transducer consists of a piezo crystal which can generate an ultrasonic sound wave by means of an electrical voltage and can, conversely, transform such an ultrasonic sound wave into a voltage and used to transmit and receive ultrasound waves).
Regarding claim 4, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 1, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising a handle portion coupled with at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments for adapting the ultrasound probe assembly for grasping (Fig. 2 shows the isometric view. Fig. 3 shows the top view. Fig. 4 shows the bottom view with the transducer rows. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to grasp and control the ultrasound probe so long as the ultrasound elements are not obstructed. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to contact the ultrasound elements to the surface.2 This can be achieved by holding the probe from the side or the top).
Regarding claim 5, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 1, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, wherein:
said signals are analog and/or digital signals (Paragraph 0002 teaches that a transducer consists of a piezo crystal which can generate an ultrasonic sound wave by means of an electrical voltage and can, conversely, transform such an ultrasonic sound wave into a voltage and used to transmit and receive ultrasound waves. Fig. 1 shows the cable connection to the transducer elements), and
the at least one signal interface of a selected interconnectable probe segment is adapted to:
transmit said signals to the selected interconnectable probe segment, which excite at least one predefined transducer element of the selected interconnectable probe segment to emit ultrasound waves from the selected interconnectable probe segment; and/or transmit said signals from the selected interconnectable probe segment, which describe ultrasound waves received by at least one predefined transducer element of the selected interconnectable probe segment (Paragraph 0002 teaches that a transducer consists of a piezo crystal which can generate an ultrasonic sound wave by means of an electrical voltage and can, conversely, transform such an ultrasonic sound wave into a voltage and used to transmit and receive ultrasound waves. Paragraph 0003 teaches that the transducer element is coupled to the echoscope via the connector and used in the processing the collected reflection values for the formation of images. Paragraph 0061 teaches that the connector is connected to the transducers and to the echoscope. See Fig. 1. Paragraph 0059 teaches the operation of the transducer elements such that they operate together).
Regarding claim 6, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 1, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, wherein:
the plurality of interconnectable probe segments are selectively interconnectable via at least one mounting interface, wherein at least two interconnectable probe segments each include at least one mounting interface that mutually interconnect with each other such that the probe surface thereby created has a flush shape across the interconnected probe segments (Fig. 4 shows the composite transducer element that is made up of the interlocking transducer elements. Paragraph 0067 teaches that they are connected in a detachable manner via click-fit means. Figs. 2-4 shows the transducer elements being flush with one another and having flat surfaces).
Regarding claim 11, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 6, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, wherein
one first interconnectable probe segment of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments serves as a main segment that comprises at least one of a handle portion for adapting the ultrasound probe assembly for grasping (Fig. 2 shows the isometric view. Fig. 3 shows the top view. Fig. 4 shows the bottom view with the transducer rows. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to grasp and control the ultrasound probe so long as the ultrasound elements are not obstructed. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to contact the ultrasound elements to the surface.3 This can be achieved by holding the probe from the side or the top),
a signal unit adapted for generating, processing and/or analyzing said signals, and the at least one signal interface (Paragraph 0003 teaches a transducer element is coupled to an echoscope by means of a connector, which echoscope ensures that the sound waves to be transmitted are generated by the transducers and which receives the measured values of the reflection via the transducer element and processes these to form images which can be interpreted by the user); and
at least one second probe segment of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments serves as an auxiliary segment that connects to the main segment and is controlled via the main segment (Abstract teaches that the first and second transducer elements are detachably connected to one another in at least two positions. Figs. 2-4 show the connection between the elements. Paragraphs 0033-0036 teaches the transducer elements can be detachably connected to one another by means of a holder element for holding the various transducer elements. Transducer elements are detachably connectable to one another by means of a sliding connection. Paragraphs 0038-43 provide teaching of a click fit connection for the transducer elements).
Regarding claim 12, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly of claim 6, as discussed above.
However, Eelbode is silent regarding an ultrasound probe assembly, wherein at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments comprises at least one digital or physical identification feature that enables the signal unit to determine, via the at least one signal interface, at least one property of emission characteristics and/or reception characteristics provided by a respective one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments connected to the ultrasound probe assembly, the at least one property of emission characteristics and/or reception characteristics being defined with respect to a point of reference defined at a predefined spatial position with respect to the ultrasound probe assembly or a tracking marker of the ultrasound probe assembly.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding modular probe design, Taffler teaches an ultrasound probe, wherein at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments comprises at least one digital or physical identification feature that enables the signal unit to determine, via the at least one signal interface, at least one property of emission characteristics and/or reception characteristics provided by a respective one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments connected to the ultrasound probe assembly, the at least one property of emission characteristics and/or reception characteristics being defined with respect to a point of reference defined at a predefined spatial position with respect to the ultrasound probe assembly or a tracking marker of the ultrasound probe assembly (Paragraph 0023-24 teach the use of identifiable fiducials that may be registered or could be based on RFID or QR codes. These provide the basis for registration of the transducers with each unique property or identifier. This provides the position and orientation reference that allows for the increase in accuracy of the determination of the location and orientation of the transducers. Claim 11 teaches that the computing device and device for fiducial detection may be used. Claim 12 teaches the control of the emission according to the transducer elements. Paragraph 0020 teaches the control of the propagation delay of the signal paths according to the architecture and position of the ultrasonic transducers. Paragraphs 0038-40 teaches the connection of multiple devices or components via the interface).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eelbode with Taffler’s teaching of use of an identification feature for transducer control. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve resolution of the transducer array (Paragraph 0033 of Taffler). Furthermore, the modification allows for multiple uses and adjustment of the probe for differing situations (Paragraph 0001 of Taffler).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eelbode (PGPUB No. US 2013/0294198) in view of Taffler (PGPUB No. US 2021/0106315) further in view of Grim et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0305927).
Regarding claim 4, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 1, as discussed above.
Eelbode further teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising a handle portion coupled with at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments for adapting the ultrasound probe assembly for grasping (Fig. 2 shows the isometric view. Fig. 3 shows the top view. Fig. 4 shows the bottom view with the transducer rows. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to grasp and control the ultrasound probe so long as the ultrasound elements are not obstructed. One with ordinary skill in the art would be able to contact the ultrasound elements to the surface.4 This can be achieved by holding the probe from the side or the top).
Alternatively, in an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound probe design, Grim teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising a handle portion coupled with at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments for adapting the ultrasound probe assembly for grasping (Fig. 1 shows the user hand holding the handle that controls the probe. The bottom of the probe contains the array).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Eelbode and Taffler with Grim’s teaching of a handle portion for grasping. This modified apparatus would allow the user to perform needle guidance and biopsy procedures (Paragraph 0038 of Grim). Furthermore, the modification facilitates the creation of a singular integrated image based on the initial generation of two separate ultrasound images from two discrete ultrasound transducers that account for the needle path and angle (Paragraph 0038 of Grim).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eelbode (PGPUB No. US 2013/0294198) in view of Taffler (PGPUB No. US 2021/0106315) further in view of Qiao et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0037990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Eelbode and Taffler is silent regarding an ultrasound probe assembly, the signal unit is adapted to selectively control predefined transducer elements of at least one of the plurality interconnectable of probe segments to convert electrical energy into sound energy and/or to convert sound energy into electrical energy.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound probe design, Qiao teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, the signal unit is adapted to selectively control predefined transducer elements of at least one of the plurality interconnectable of probe segments to convert electrical energy into sound energy and/or to convert sound energy into electrical energy (Paragraph 0047 teaches that the controller can be arranged to transmit trigger signals to all or to each channel of the multi-channel arbitrary waveform generator, which are each arranged to generate a control signal for each transducer element in the array, the form and relative timing of which determines the shape of an ultrasound pulse produced by the respective transducer array. The control signals to the individual transducer elements can be coordinated so as to steer the ultrasound pulses produced by the array. This enables the focal spot to be moved to place it in the desired location whilst the transducer arrays themselves remain stationary).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Eelbode and Taffler with Qiao’s teaching of controlling the ultrasound transmission via control signals. This modified apparatus would allow the user to achieve improved imaging of blood flow during a hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke event, which could then be treated by transcranial sonothrombolysis (Paragraph 0081 of Qiao). Furthermore, the modification can form a transmitter array having a plurality of different shapes each associated with one of the configurations (Abstract of Qiao).
Regarding claim 9, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 6, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Eelbode and Taffler is silent regarding an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising:
an intermediate segment adapted to releasably connect between at least two of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, via at least one of the respective signal interfaces and the respective mounting interfaces.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound probe design, Qiao teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising:
an intermediate segment adapted to releasably connect between at least two of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, via at least one of the respective signal interfaces and the respective mounting interfaces (Paragraphs 0052-54 teach that the units of transducers can be connected via the brace elements and fasteners than place them together. See Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Eelbode and Taffler with Qiao’s teaching of an intermediate segment to releasable connect between the probe segments. This modified apparatus would allow the user to achieve improved imaging of blood flow during a hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke event, which could then be treated by transcranial sonothrombolysis (Paragraph 0081 of Qiao). Furthermore, the modification can form a transmitter array having a plurality of different shapes each associated with one of the configurations (Abstract of Qiao).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eelbode (PGPUB No. US 2013/0294198) in view of Taffler (PGPUB No. US 2021/0106315) further in view of Richard et al. (PGPUB No. US 2017/0095228).
Regarding claim 10, modified Eelbode teaches the ultrasound probe assembly in claim 6, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Eelbode and Taffler is silent regarding an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising:
a separate handle segment adapted to releasably connect with at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, via at the respective mounting interface.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound probe design, Richard teaches an ultrasound probe assembly, further comprising:
a separate handle segment adapted to releasably connect with at least one of the plurality of interconnectable probe segments, via at the respective mounting interface (Figs. 3-4 shows a detachable handle from the probe array. Paragraph 0019 teaches the second connection port includes an upper female slot and a lower female slot for matingly connecting to the corresponding upper and lower male slots).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Eelbode and Taffler with Richard’s teaching of a separate handle segment for releasable connection with the probe segment. This modified apparatus would allow the user to interchange probe elements (Paragraph 0001 of Richard). Furthermore, the modification provides an improved portable medical scanning system having a probe that is efficiently and readily interchangeable during the diagnostic imaging process, is relatively small, lightweight and reasonably priced, and allows for a high-quality scanned image (Paragraph 0010 of Richard).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kemper et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0265243): Teaches a modular transducer design with inter communication with a signal unit and amongst the transducers.
Nguyen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0365351): Teaches a modular transducer design with inter communication with a signal unit and amongst the transducers.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
2 “Probe manipulation: Slide – Movement of the probe in the long axis along the surface of the body The probe remains perpendicular to the target Sweep – Movement of the probe in the short axis along the surface of the body The probe remains perpendicular to the target Rock – Movement of the probe along its long axis without changing the point of contact between the probe and the surface of the body Fan – Movement of the probe along its short axis without changing the point of contact between the probe and the surface of the body Pressure/compression – Movement of the probe into the surface of the body Footprint maintains contact with the surface of the body and the probe remains perpendicular to the target Rotate – Movement of the probe clockwise or counterclockwise Footprint maintains contact with the surface of the body and the probe remains perpendicular to the target” (Link: https://www.acep.org/sonoguide/basic/ultrasound-physics-and-technical-facts-for-the-beginner/)
3 “Probe manipulation: Slide – Movement of the probe in the long axis along the surface of the body The probe remains perpendicular to the target Sweep – Movement of the probe in the short axis along the surface of the body The probe remains perpendicular to the target Rock – Movement of the probe along its long axis without changing the point of contact between the probe and the surface of the body Fan – Movement of the probe along its short axis without changing the point of contact between the probe and the surface of the body Pressure/compression – Movement of the probe into the surface of the body Footprint maintains contact with the surface of the body and the probe remains perpendicular to the target Rotate – Movement of the probe clockwise or counterclockwise Footprint maintains contact with the surface of the body and the probe remains perpendicular to the target” (Link: https://www.acep.org/sonoguide/basic/ultrasound-physics-and-technical-facts-for-the-beginner/)
4 “Probe manipulation: Slide – Movement of the probe in the long axis along the surface of the body The probe remains perpendicular to the target Sweep – Movement of the probe in the short axis along the surface of the body The probe remains perpendicular to the target Rock – Movement of the probe along its long axis without changing the point of contact between the probe and the surface of the body Fan – Movement of the probe along its short axis without changing the point of contact between the probe and the surface of the body Pressure/compression – Movement of the probe into the surface of the body Footprint maintains contact with the surface of the body and the probe remains perpendicular to the target Rotate – Movement of the probe clockwise or counterclockwise Footprint maintains contact with the surface of the body and the probe remains perpendicular to the target” (Link: https://www.acep.org/sonoguide/basic/ultrasound-physics-and-technical-facts-for-the-beginner/)