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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments below filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive | moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The Applicant asserts on page 9 of the Response:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is rendered moot by the present amendment to Claim 1. Claim 1 is amended to clarify that the positions of the transducer groups have x and y coordinates that coincide with each other.”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that the claim now recites “wherein the position of the first transducer group and the position of the second transducer group face each other in a thickness direction of the ultrasonic probe and have x and y coordinates that coincide with each other.” The specification defines facing each other as having x and y coordinates that coincide with each other. Therefore as recited below it is unclear how the position of the first transducer group and the position of the second transducer group are facing each other in a thickness direction of the ultrasonic probe and have x and y coordinates that coincide with each other.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 of claims 1-8 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 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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 9-11 of claim 1 recite “wherein the position of the first transducer group and the position of the second transducer group face each other in a thickness direction of the ultrasonic probe and have x and y coordinates that coincide with each other”. The specification discloses in [0066] of the pre-grant publication “the position CP1 of the first transducer group 21 and the position CP2 of the second transducer group 22 have a positional relationship of facing (That is, the X coordinate and the Y coordinate coincide with each other)”. However the term facing implies that the two arrays are facing towards each other. The specification defines facing each other as the X coordinate and the Y coordinate coincide with each other. The specification does not appear to disclose or show in the drawings a probe with two arrays facing towards each other. In light of the specification it is unclear how the position of the first transducer group and the position of the second transducer group would face each other in a thickness direction (the X coordinate and the Y coordinate coincide with each other) of the ultrasonic probe and have x and y coordinates that coincide with each other. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as the position of the first transducer group and the position of the second transducer group have an X coordinate and a Y coordinate that coincide with each other in a thickness direction of the ultrasound probe.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaulov (US 4870867) and further in view of Matsunaga (US 20170252010).
Regarding claim 1, Shaulov discloses an ultrasonic probe (Col. 2 lines 5-7 – “The present invention is directed to providing a relatively simple and inexpensive piezoelectric transducer that includes two intersecting linear arrays”) comprising:
a first transducer group including a plurality of transducers arranged along a first direction (Fig. 1 array 10 is arranged along a first direction, Col. 2 lines 43-46 – “Transducer 5 is cross shaped in plan view and comprises a first linear array 10 and second linear array 20 disposed orthogonally to each other”);
a second transducer group arranged in an inverted direction with respect to the first transducer group (Fig. 1 shows the second array 20 arranged in an inverted direction with respect to the first array 10, col. 2 lines 15-18 – “The transducer constructed in accordance with the present invention is fabricated from a cross shaped piezoelectric plate covered on both faces with thin metallic electrodes”), the second transducer group including a plurality of transducers arranged along a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 43-46 – “Transducer 5 is cross shaped in plan view and comprises a first linear array 10 and second linear array 20 disposed orthogonally to each other”); and
wherein the position of the first transducer group and the position of the second transducer group face each other in a thickness direction of the ultrasonic probe and have x and y coordinates that coincide with each other (As seen in Fig. 1 a center position of the first array 10 and a center position of the second array 20 have an x coordinate and a y coordinate that coincide with each other, Col. 3 lines 23-25 – “Disposed at the center of arrays 10 and 20 is an aperture 44 which extends completely through plate 30 and electrodes 32, 34”).
Conversely Shaulov does not teach a position sensor configured to detect a position of the first transducer group and a position of the second transducer group,
However Matsunaga discloses a position sensor configured to detect a position of the first transducer group and a position of the second transducer group ([0042] – “the position of the sensor 23 attached on the ultrasonic probe 11 is defined as P0, a scan plane position of the convex array 22 a as Pa, and a scan plane position of the linear array 22 b as Pb. The scan plane position Pa of the convex array 22 a may be the center position of the piezoelectric transducers of the convex array 22…the scan plane position Pb of the linear array 22 b may be the center position of the piezoelectric transducers of the linear array 22 b”),
Matsunaga is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a probe with two transducer arrays.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Shaulov to incorporate the position sensor of Matsunaga to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because the it would allow one to determine the location of the transducers to more easily position the probe correctly over the desired target.
Regarding claim 2, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Shaulov further discloses wherein the first transducer group and the second transducer group are driven while being switched with each other (Col. 3 lines 63-68 – “In the position shown, array 20 is connected to scanning electronics 52 to provide one field of view and the electrodes of array 10 are connected to ground. Subsequent switching to the other position activates array 10 to provide the orthogonal field of view”).
Regarding claim 3, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Shaulov further discloses wherein the second direction is a direction orthogonal to the first direction (Fig. 1, Col. 2 lines 43-46 – “Transducer 5 is cross shaped in plan view and comprises a first linear array 10 and second linear array 20 disposed orthogonally to each other”).
Regarding claim 4, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Shaulov further discloses wherein the second direction is a direction intersecting the first direction at an angle other than 90° (Col.2 lines 67-68 – “arrays 10, 20 need not intersect at 90° as other crossing angles may also be constructed”).
Regarding claim 6, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Shaulov further discloses wherein a scanning method of the first transducer group is a same as a scanning method of the second transducer group (Figs 1 and 2, Abstract – “An improved piezoelectric transducer permitting linear scanning along two intersecting planes…First and second linear arrays are formed by the partial dicing of the opposite faces of the electrodes and plate”).
Regarding claim 8, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 6.
Shaulov further discloses wherein a scanning method of the first transducer group and the second transducer group is any of a linear electronic scanning method, a convex electronic scanning method, and a sector electronic scanning method (Figs 1 and 2, Abstract – “An improved piezoelectric transducer permitting linear scanning along two intersecting planes…First and second linear arrays are formed by the partial dicing of the opposite faces of the electrodes and plate”, Col. 1 lines 11-14 – “In a linear array ultrasonic scanner the transducer consists of a series of individually addressable piezoelectric segments which emit ultrasonic waves when energized by the application of electricity”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaulov (US4870867) and Matsunaga (US 20170252010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otomo (JP2002034986A – machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Shaulov does not teach further comprising a cable electrically connected to the first transducer group and the second transducer group, wherein the plurality of transducers of the first transducer group or the plurality of transducers of the second transducer group are arranged along the cable.
However Otomo discloses further comprising a cable electrically connected to the first transducer group and the second transducer group, wherein the plurality of transducers of the first transducer group or the plurality of transducers of the second transducer group are arranged along the cable ([0066] – “a cable is drawn out from the base end of the vertically elongated portion 74”, [0065] – “In FIG. 8 , the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprises a main body 64 and a probe 66”, [0067] – “the device body 64 is provided with a first transmitting section 78 and a second transmitting section 80. The first transmitting section 78…supplies a transmission signal to the first array transducer 68 , and the second transmitting section 80…supplies a transmission signal to the second array transducer 70”, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the cable would be used to connect the probe to the main body therefore the cable would be electrically connected to the first transducer group and the second transducer group to provide transmission to both groups).
Otomo is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a probe with two transducer arrays.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Shaulov to incorporate the cable of Otomo to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would provide a wired connection between the transducer and a processing apparatus for images to be formed, the wired connection would provide fast data transfer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaulov (US 4870867) and Matsunaga (US 20170252010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cannon (US 20100286527).
Regarding claim 7, Shaulov and Matsunaga disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Shaulov does not teach wherein a scanning method of the first transducer group is different from a scanning method of the second transducer group.
However Cannon discloses wherein a scanning method of the first transducer group is different from a scanning method of the second transducer group ([0078] – “FIG. 6B, the probe is an enlongated shape with a phased array 610 configured at one end of the single probe, and the linear array 608”).
Cannon is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a probe with two transducer arrays.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Shaulov to incorporate the different scanning methods of Cannon to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the linear array 614 may, again, have a higher center frequency for near-field vascular imaging while the phased array 610 may be a lower frequency transducer designed for cardiac imaging where access through the rib cage is required” (Cannon [0078]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11-20 are allowed. One with ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to combine prior art to teach an ultrasonic probe with a first transducer group having a plurality of transducers arranged along a first direction, and a second transducer group arranged in an inverted direction with respect to the first transducer group, with the second transducer group having a plurality of transducers arranged along a second direction and processing circuitry to detect a position of the first transducer group, record the detected position of the first transducer group in a memory, and use the recorded position of the first transducer group as a reference to guide movement of the second transducer group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797