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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regard to the claim objections have been considered persuasive. The remaining applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The transducer sets need to have proper antecedent basis in order to determine how the device is functioning. It still is not clear if there are multiple transducer sets and/or how they are related especially in light of applicant’s arguments on page 13. Furthermore, applicant is reminded that a dependent claim must be narrower than the parent claim. The examiner called Justin Petruzzelli and left a voicemail to set up an interview on July 8, 2026 but no return call was received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-38 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 1 recites the limitation "a second transducer set " in line 11 and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7. It is not clear if the claimed second and third transducer sets are part of the “at least a first transducer set” or if they are each their own distinct sets of transducers. Subsequent recitations of “the second transducer set” and “the third transducer set” found in the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a fourth transducer set" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one. It is not clear if the claimed fourth transducer set is part of the “at least a first transducer set” of claim one or if it is its own distinct set of transducers. Subsequent recitations of “the fourth transducer set” found in the dependent claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the fourth transducer set of the transducer-based device is the second transducer set” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the second transducer set.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "wherein each of the second transducer set and the third transducer set is the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one, “a second transducer set” in line 11 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " wherein the fourth transducer set is the third transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one and “a fourth transducer set” in claim two. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 15 and 35 recite the limitation "wherein the third transducer set of the transducer-based device is the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " wherein the third transducer set of the transducer-based device is other than the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the second graphical element set is the first graphical element set” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear how two previously claimed elements can be the same element. This claim is indefinite and fails to conform with current U.S. practice.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "wherein the third transducer set of the transducer-based device is the first transducer set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 7 of claim one and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20 of claim one. Furthermore, it is not clear if another transducer set is being claimed and/or how it may relate to the third transducer set.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "a second transducer set " in line 9 and “at least a third transducer set” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 5. It is not clear if the claimed second and third transducer sets are part of the “at least a first transducer set” or if they are each their own distinct sets of transducers.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "a second transducer set " in line 8 and “at least a third transducer set” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim in light of the recitation of “at least a first transducer set” in line 5. It is not clear if the claimed second and third transducer sets are part of the “at least a first transducer set” or if they are each their own distinct sets of transducers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PG Pub 2017/0120080, PG Pub 2016/0317844, PG Pub 2001/0000791 and PG Pub 2014/0081262.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA M GOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Wed, 7am to 3pm.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/SAMANTHA M GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights