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 .
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.
The limitations “control system for” in Claim 1, “control means” in Claim 16 – 18 and 20, “means for detecting the blood vessel” in Claims 17, “means for estimating one or more blood vessel features” in claim 18, and “means for estimating blood pressure” in claim 20 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The corresponding structural disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: [0005] “The control system may include one or more general purpose single- or multi-chip processors, digital signal processors (DSPs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or other programmable logic devices, discrete gates or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or combinations thereof.” Thus, the above limitation “control means” and “control system for” are interpreted as a control system with processor(s) or logic circuits or any reasonable equivalent electronic components to perform the claimed function according to the above disclosure.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument on Page 10 regarding the duplicate claims warning has been fully considered but is not persuasive. While Claim 16-18 and 20 are interpreted under 112(f), the claims still contain substantially the same subject matter as Claims 1-5. As stated in the claim interpretation, the limitation “control means” and “control system for” are interpreted as having the exact same scope as each other and are essentially duplicates despite the slight difference in wording. The duplicate claims objection is maintained.
The rejections of Claims 1-9, 13-14, 16-25, and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kitchens in view of Lading and Baba, Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kitchens in view of Lading and Baba further in view of Kwon, Claims 15, 26, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kitchens in view of Lading and Baba further in view of Zalev are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 16-20 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claims 1-5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 and 21-32 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Kitchens is cited for teaching an apparatus ([0067]), comprising: a platen ([0094]); a light source system configured for providing light to a target object on an outer surface of the platen ([0092] and [0094]); an ultrasonic receiver system configured to receive ultrasonic waves generated by the target object responsive to the light from the light source system, the ultrasonic receiver system including an array of ultrasonic receiver elements ([0068], [0094], [0096]), wherein the array of ultrasonic receiver elements includes a linear array of ultrasonic receiver elements ([0214]); and a control system ([0067]) configured to: receive ultrasonic receiver signals from each of a plurality of ultrasonic receiver elements in the array ([0097] and [0155]); and detect a blood vessel within the target object based, at least in part, on the beamformed ultrasonic receiver image ([0097]).
Lading is cited for teaching an apparatus ([0150]), comprising: a control system ([0168]) configured to: apply a receiver-side beamforming process to the ultrasonic receiver signals, to produce a beamformed ultrasonic receiver image ([0157] and [0182]).
Theodore is cited for teaching an apparatus ([0035]), comprising: an ultrasonic receiver system configured to receive ultrasonic waves generated by the target object responsive to the light from the light source system, the ultrasonic receiver system including an array of ultrasonic receiver elements ([0094]), wherein the pitch between the ultrasonic receiver elements is within range of a wavelength corresponding to a frequency of ultrasonic waves generated by the target object responsive to the light from the light source system ([0097]).
The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest an array of ultrasonic receiver elements having a pitch between adjacent ultrasonic receiver elements that is equal to a wavelength corresponding to a peak frequency of ultrasonic waves generated by the target object responsive to the light from the light source system (emphasis added).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY whose telephone number is (571)272-8022. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 EST.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795