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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending in this application. Claims 16-25 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-15 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 1-15 drawn to Invention I in the reply filed on 04/10/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II drawn to a dielectric-loaded radio frequency antenna apparatus, and Invention III drawn to thermoacoustic and ultrasound tomography imaging method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 2 and 3 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 2 recites the limitation “the dielectric material has a permittivity property that approximates a permittivity property of a specimen”. It is unclear how the dielectric material is configured to approximate the permittivity property of the specimen and how this is accomplished. The specifications do not provide any further detail nor information on what the dielectric material could be. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any material that has similar properties to the sample or specimen being imaged. However, further clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “comprising a gas-filled spacer”. It is unclear what is comprised of the gas-filled spacer. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as any gas-filled spacer (i.e. air) existing within the space imaging is being conducted. However, further clarification is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 2, 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631)
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches an imaging system, comprising: one or more dielectric-loaded radio frequency antenna apparatus, each dielectric-loaded radio frequency antenna apparatus comprising a radio frequency antenna for transmitting radio frequency pulses (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 2], where an imaging system is described and the antenna transmits RF pulses “we describe a hybrid TA/US imaging system, the pulsed microwave generated by a custom-designed microwave generator(peak power 60 kW, frequency 3.05 GHz, pulse duration 550 ns, and repetition rate 50 Hz)is transmitted through the coaxial cable (1.5 meter long with 1.2 dB insertion loss) to a handheld dipole antenna”);
and an ultrasonic sensor array configured to detect acoustic waves (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 3, 3.2], where US imaging, which consists of detecting acoustic waves, was completed using a linear array “US imaging was performed using the commercial linear array”).
Wang does not teach where the internal volume of the antenna apparatus is at least partially filled with a dielectric material.
Evans, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches where the internal volume of the antenna apparatus is at least partially filled with a dielectric material (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 628], where it’s indicated from the text that there is an inside dielectric material within the antenna “. High-power pulses increase the dielectric breakdown risk of narrow-diameter coaxial antennas. Breakdown damages the dielectric material in an antenna”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have specified the dielectric material in the antenna. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because dielectric materials are important in thermoacoustics for acoustic wave propagation and generation.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations of Claim 1.
Specifically, Evans teaches wherein the dielectric material has a permittivity property that approximates a permittivity property of a specimen being imaged during operation (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg 628], where the antenna with a dielectric material matches with the specimen used during the imaging “The maximum power handling capability of this antenna is calculated to be 78 kW based on the dielectric strength of the cable insulation material (PTFE), which is estimated to be 10 MVm−1… The antenna reported in [6] is well matched in egg white and bovine liver at the operating frequency of 9.382 GHz”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a dielectric material with a permittivity property that matches with the specimen. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because matching the permittivity properties allows for wave propagation. Major differences between the permittivity properties could cause signal reduction.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination noted above teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Specifically, Wang teaches the imaging system further comprising an ultrasonic transmitting transducer (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 3, 2.1], where there is an ultrasound transducer capable of transmission “the US signals are acquired by a commercial B-mode ultrasound acquisition system with 128 transmitting/receiving channels”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination noted above teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Specifically, Wang teaches wherein the imaging system is configured for human-scale imaging (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 8, 5], where human-scale (i.e. information in the wrist and foot) is possible “The in vivo results shown indicate that this dual-modal TA/US imaging system provide complementary tissue information in imaging the wrist and foot”).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631) and in further view of Luyen et al. (“Microwave ablation at 10.0 GHz achieves comparable ablation zones to 1.9 GHz in ex vivo bovine liver”, IEEE, 2014, Vol. 61 No 6, pg 1702-10).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations noted above. Wang does not specify the imaging system further comprising a gas-filled spacer configured to block acoustic waves.
Luyen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the imaging system further comprising a gas-filled spacer configured to block acoustic waves (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 1703], where there is a gap in the antenna, “Each antenna is composed of a main feeding coaxial cable with a dipole at the end. The dipole has arm lengths of ha and hb and a gap length of g.”; the gap, shown further in Figure 1a would be filled with gas (i.e. air), which is further justified by [pg. 1704], where the thermal properties of the materials are listed, including air “. The assumed thermal properties of copper, Teflon, liver, and air are listed in Table III”).
PNG
media_image1.png
150
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1a of Luyen
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a gas-filled spacer. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because including the space would ensure that the thermoacoustic waves being generated are not from inside the system but rather, what is being imaged.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Specifically, Luyen teaches wherein the gas-filled spacer is located between the one or more dielectric-loaded radio frequency antenna apparatus and an acoustic medium (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 1706], where the antenna of Figure 1a, which has the gap filled with gas (i.e. air) is inserted into a liver, which can be considered an acoustic medium “the antennas were inserted at a depth of 13 cm into the bovine liver”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included the acoustic medium between the antenna. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because acoustic medium is used for propagating the acoustic waves.
Claim(s) 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631) and in further view of Wu et al. (“A Handheld Microwave Thermoacoustic Imaging System With an Impedance Matching Microwave-Sono Probe for Breast Tumor Screening”, IEEE,2021, Vol 41, Issue 5, pg. 1080-1086).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Specifically, Wu teaches the imaging system further comprising a delay generator configured to interleave thermoacoustic signals based on radio frequency energy from the one or more dielectric-loaded radio frequency antenna apparatus with ultrasound signals based on ultrasonic energy from the ultrasonic transmitting transducer (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 1080], where thermoacoustic signals are first collected then after, the ultrasound acoustic waves, causing them to be interleaved, “In MTAI, biological tissues absorb pulsed microwave energy and subsequently emit acoustic waves through thermal expansion [11]. Subsequently, the acoustic waves are received by ultrasonic transducers to reconstruct the distribution of microwave absorbers in the tissues”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have interleaved the thermoacoustic signals with the ultrasound signals. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because this ensures that the signals do not overlap and the two acoustic signals can be differentiated.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631) and in further view of Wu et al. (“A Handheld Microwave Thermoacoustic Imaging System With an Impedance Matching Microwave-Sono Probe for Breast Tumor Screening”, IEEE,2021, Vol 41, Issue 5, pg. 1080-1086) as applied in claim 5, and in further view of Ding et al. (“Microwave-excited ultrasound and thermoacoustic dual imaging”, Applied Physics Letters, 2017, 110, 183701).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Specifically, Wu teaches the imaging system further comprising a data acquisition system configured to record and digitize the interleaved thermoacoustic and ultrasonic signals (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 1080], where thermoacoustic signals are first collected then after, the ultrasound acoustic waves, causing them to be interleaved, “In MTAI, biological tissues absorb pulsed microwave energy and subsequently emit acoustic waves through thermal expansion [11]. Subsequently, the acoustic waves are received by ultrasonic transducers to reconstruct the distribution of microwave absorbers in the tissues”).
Wu does not teach the thermoacoustic and ultrasonic signals being recorded in a single session.
Ding, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the imaging system further comprising a data acquisition system configured to record thermoacoustic and ultrasonic signals in a single recording session (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 1], where both the signals are simultaneously acquired “After transformation to the electrical signal by the ultrasonic receiver, both the signals are acquired by a same data acquisition systems (DAS)”, and further in [pg.3] “the simultaneous MUI and MTI imaging experiments of an excised tumor are performed”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have simultaneously acquired the signals. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because it combines two modalities together into a single hardware device and avoids redundancy and complexities (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 1] of Ding).
Claims 8, 9, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631) and in further view of Bates (US 20200405260 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Wang does not teach wherein the ultrasonic transmitting transducer is configured to move around a specimen being imaged.
Bates, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasonic transmitting transducer is configured to move around a specimen being imaged (corresponding disclosure in at least [0053], where the transducers rotate around the specimen (i.e. the breast) “the one or more transducers 210 and/or 214 are rotated around the breast while the associated electronics both transmit and receive acoustic information to/from the breast”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a transducer move around the specimen being imaged. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because it provides a full 360 degree scan of the specimen without having to move the specimen itself for 3D imaging (corresponding disclosure in at least [0023] of Bates “the rotary motion alternated between 360 degrees”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Specifically, Bates teaches the imaging system further comprising a motor configured to move the ultrasonic transmitting transducer along a line, an arc, or a circle (corresponding disclosure in at least [0053], where the transducers rotate in a circular motion “one or more transducers 210 and/or 214 are rotated around the breast while the associated electronics both transmit and receive acoustic information to/from the breast”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have specified the movement of the transducers to be along a line, arc, or circle. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because the motor moving in a pattern, such as a circle, allows for a full 360 degree scan of the specimen being imaged (corresponding disclosure in at least [0053] of Bates, where the circular motion provides 360 degrees of scan).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations. Specifically, Bates teaches the imaging system further comprising a tank with an acoustic medium (corresponding disclosure in at least [0029], where there is a tank with an acoustic medium (i.e. the fluid material) “The inner tank is fabricated from an acoustically transparent, or nearly transparent (e.g., low acoustic absorption (absorbing less than of the acoustic energy) and an acoustic impedance close to the couplant fluid material”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a tank with an acoustic medium. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because the tank can be filled with an acoustic medium for coupling purposes from the transducer to the specimen.
Regarding claim 13, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations. Specifically, Bates teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor array comprises a plurality of integrated pre-amplifiers in one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of ultrasonic transducers (corresponding disclosure in at least [0082] and Figure 4, where there are preamplifiers for the transducers “The receive processing of FIG. 4 operates similarly, with preamplifiers 402 a through 402 n associated with each annular ring, the preamplifier 402 a through 402 n providing signal to depth gain control amplifiers”).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
277
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Bates
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included preamplifiers for each of the transducers. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because each transducer is transmitting and receiving signals, and help enhance the generated signals.
Regarding claim 14, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations. Specifically, Bates teaches wherein the ultrasonic transducers and pre-amplifiers are located along a ring (corresponding disclosure in at least [0024], where the transducers are placed in a ring “a combination of the rotation of the transducer assembly, and placement of each transducer in the transducer ring”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the transducers and preamplifiers along a ring. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because having the transducers in the ring configuration could reduce the scan time in particular scan directions, such as the coronal plane (corresponding disclosure in at least [0077] of Bates).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631) and in further view of Fyler et al. (US 20210173061 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Wang does not teach wherein the ultrasonic transmitting transducer comprises a diverging lens.
Fyler, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasonic transmitting transducer comprises a diverging lens (corresponding disclosure in at least [0007], where there is a divergent lens on the ultrasound transducer “The assembly also includes a divergent acoustic lens that is acoustically coupled to the acoustic radiative surface of the ultrasonic transducer element”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the lens to the transducer. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because by using the lens, the ultrasound waves being transmitted from the transducer can be optimized depending on the user’s preferences. For diverging lenses, it could increase the beam width to cover a greater range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Integrated thermoacoustic and ultrasound imaging based on the combination of a hollow concave transducer array and a linear transducer array”, Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2021, 66) in view of Evans et al. (“Feasibility Study of Microsecond Pulsed Microwave Ablation Using a Minimally Invasive Antenna”, IEEE, 2021, Vol 20 Issue 4, pg 627-631) and in further view of Greene et al. (US 20210000382 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination noted above teaches all of the claimed limitations.
Wang does not specify wherein the ultrasonic sensor array comprises a shield.
Greene, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasonic sensor array comprises a shield (corresponding disclosure in at least [0037], where the ultrasound probe has a shielding “exemplary internal components of the probe 20 are shown (after removing the outer housing 21), e.g., including an internal sleeve or housing 26 carrying the antenna assembly 30, and, optionally, shielding 37, on or within its distal end 26b”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a shielding with the ultrasonic sensor array. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because shielding can be used as an insulator or to prevent fluids and other materials to enter the end of the probe (corresponding disclosure in at least [0044] of Greene).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
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, Ashley Buran can be reached at (571) 270-5284. 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.
/K.E.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3700