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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 22, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 49-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cosman (6,241,725).
Regarding claim 49, Cosman provides an integrated user interface (731) for control or monitoring of both ultrasound imaging (as seen in window 741) and tissue ablation (i.e. the image shows tissue ablation progression and windows (742 and 743) show ablation parameters and means to alter the ablation parameters (i.e. power)). See, also, column 9, lines 10-30 which describes both the display for ultrasound and the graphical user interface for tissue data.
Regarding claim 50, the computer has a memory which stores imaging and ablation data (col. 3 lines 38-45, for example). Regarding claim 51, see Figure 7 which shows an ultrasound representation of tissue (with probes inserted) as well as a display of readings from the ablation apparatus (e.g. temperature and impedance). Regarding claim 52, the interface (731) is integrated into the imaging apparatus (i.e. the interface provides the display of the imaging apparatus). Regarding claim 53, Cosman discloses RF ablation (col. 4, lines 17-35). Regarding claim 54, the interface includes a computer having a controller that allows for adjustment of the imaging and the ablation parameters as needed (col. 9, lines 12-30, for example).
Regarding claim 55, Cosman provides a system comprising an ultrasound imaging apparatus, an ablation apparatus and a single user interface (731) that includes user controls and a data display for both imaging and tissue ablation (col. 9, lines 12-30 and Figure 7).
Regarding claim 56, Cosman provides a system comprising an ultrasound imaging apparatus (721) and a tissue ablation apparatus(701). There is inherently a data connection (727) that allows the two systems to communicate and the ultrasound imaging apparatus receives and displays data from the tissue ablation apparatus (e.g. isotherms) via that data connection.
Regarding claim 57, the data includes measurements and settings of the tissue ablation apparatus (i.e. temperature, impedance and power). Regarding claim 58, the imaging apparatus includes controls for the tissue ablation apparatus (col. 9, lines 12-30). Regarding claim 59, the data includes data from the imaging (col. 3, lines 38-45) and data from the ablation apparatus (i.e. power level). Regarding claims 60 and 61, see again column 9, lines 12-30. Regarding claim 62, Cosman uses an RF generator as addressed previously. Regarding claim 63, Cosman uses RF energy and includes data including power, time, impedance and temperature (Figure 7). Regarding claim 64, Cosman also disclose the use of microwave energy (col. 9, lines 38-42). Regarding claim 65, the data connection is a wired connection. Regarding claim 66, the ultrasound imaging and tissue ablation apparatus are housed in the same chassis (Figure 7). Regarding claim 67, the imaging apparatus and the ablation apparatus (730) are housed in different chassis (Figure 7 – depending on what is considered the “ablation apparatus” which could be the generator (730) or the computer/controller). Regarding claim 68, the tissue ablation apparatus includes a standardized interface (Figure 7) by means of which more than one model of the ultrasound imaging apparatus can receive and display data from the tissue ablation apparatus via the data connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has again made only a generalized statement of the alleged deficiencies of the Cosman reference and has not pointed out any specific deficiencies. In particular, applicant states “Cosman is silent on a user interface that controls both ultrasound imaging and tissue ablation. The cited portions of Cosman reference display functionality only”. The examiner disagrees.
Figure 7 of Cosman shows an integrated user interface which provides a display for ultrasound imaging on computer graphic workstation (731) which provides a 3-D graphic rendering of the tissue (751). The workstation also provides windows to display lesion parameters associated with the ablation procedure (e.g. windows 742 and 743) and also provides icons to increase or decrease the power level on the electrode (see arrows in window 743 and col. 8, lines 60-67). Cosman expressly states the graphic workstation (i.e. GUI) may be used for “both monitoring and control of the systems such as the lesion generator 730, may be manipulated and controlled interactively on the same computer graphic screen” (col. 8, line 67 to col. 9, line 3). Cosman goes on to disclose that the computer graphic workstation may control, without limitation, the control and monitoring of the power levels of the rf ablation electrode, the control of the generator functions, the display of the generator functions, and the manipulation of the displays with computer graphic icons or menus. See column 9, lines 10-20. Hence, the examiner maintains that the Cosman reference clearly anticipates all the features of the rejected claims. Applicant’s assertion that Cosman does not disclose a user interface that controls both ultrasound imaging and tissue ablation appears unfounded in view of the clear description provided (and shown) by Cosman.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MICHAEL PEFFLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4770. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am-5 pm.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571) 272-4764. 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.
/MICHAEL F PEFFLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/M.F.P/November 2, 2025