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 Amendment
The amendment of 04/02/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 3, and 14 have been amended. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Claims 1-22 are currently pending in the application with claims 1, 11, and 14 being independent.
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 1-10 and 14-20 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.
Claims 1 and 14 recite: “a probe assembly comprising an ultrasound device or array of ultrasound devices”. It is not clear what the claim intends by the “ultrasound device”. Does it mean the housing surrounding the transducer elements? Or the transducer elements itself? As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim is not clear and the claim is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used.
Claim 22 recites “the one or more vibratory devices and at least a portion of the vibration isolation component are built directly into the ultrasound probe.” This limitation is considered to be indefinite and unclear as to what it means for something to be “directly” build into another thing? Is this referring to the process in which the device was made or the final result has a difference with another device indirectly built? As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim is not clear and the claim is considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used.
Claims 2-10, and 15-21 depend upon indefinite claims 1 and 14 and are considered to be indefinite as well 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, 3-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baghani et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0330122) hereinafter “Baghani” in view of Gallippi et al. (U.S. Publication No.) hereinafter “Gallippi” and Murakoshi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0202250) hereinafter “Murakoshi”.
Regarding claim 1, Baghani discloses an ultrasound elastography diagnostic apparatus [see abstract of Baghani] comprising: a probe assembly [probe assembly of FIG. 2] comprising:
an ultrasound probe comprising an ultrasound device or array of ultrasound devices [transducer array 502] configured to detect vibrations passing through subject tissue; [see [0116] of Baghani]
one or more vibratory devices coupled to the ultrasound probe [vibration sources see FIG. 9 and [0045]]
an input electrical interface [electrical interface 1705] communicatively couplable to a signal generator to receive a vibration driver signal [see FIG. 23 and [0125]; the signal generator 1794 is connected to the signal generator 101 through an electrical interface 1705]
the input electrical interface communicatively coupled to the one or more vibratory devices to generate a corresponding vibration; [see [0125] and FIG. 23; the interface 1705 is connected to vibration driver 101] and
an output electrical interface communicatively coupled to the ultrasound probe [see FIG. 23; the electoral interface 1707 connects the probe to the GPU 1708 which processes the images; see also [0126]] that tracks tissue displacements and is communicatively couplable to an image processor to generate a map of one or more viscoelastic properties contained in the tracked tissue displacements. [see FIG. 23 and [0126]]
Baghani does not expressly disclose that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal, a vibration isolation component; and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component;
Gallippi, directed towards shear wave measurement of tissue [see abstract of Gallippi] further discloses that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; [see [0076] of Gallippi] and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal, [see [0137] of Gallippi]
Murakoshi, directed towards design of an ultrasound probe with vibration isolation [see abstract of Murakoshi] further discloses a vibration isolation component; [vibration insulating member 4; see FIG. 4A-C and [00590]] and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component; [see FIG.s 4A-C; since the insulating member is placed at the end of the probe around the transducer, and the vibration source of Baghani is located inside the probe, the vibratory devices 101 of Baghani are only connected to the transducers via the insulating members 4]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that signal generated such that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to be able to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that the signal generated such that that it includes a vibration isolation component; and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component according to the teachings of Murakoshi in order to narrow the propagation surface of the vibration to the target region and create a more precise localized measurement [see [0014] of Murakoshi]
Regarding claim 3, Baghani further discloses that the probe assembly comprises a molded boot component that is attachable to the ultrasound probe and that carries the one or more vibratory devices and at least a portion of the vibration isolation component. [see FIG. 18 of Baghani ]
Regarding claim 4, Baghani further discloses that the elastography diagnostic apparatus of claim 1 further comprising the signal generator [see FIG. 23 and [0125]; the signal generator 1794] and the image processor. [GPU 1708 which processes the images; see FIG. 23 and [0126]
Regarding claim 5, Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 4 [see rejection of claim 4]
Gallippi further discloses that the signal generator is configured to generate the ARFI signal; [see [0076]-[0078 of Gallippi] and the image processor is configured to map the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from ARFI signal. [see [0078]-[0079]; the shear modulus is tracked and mapped]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that the signal generator is configured to generate the ARFI signal; and the image processor is configured to map the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from ARFI signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
Regarding claim 6, Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 4 [see rejection of claim 4]
Gallippi further discloses that the signal generator is configured to generate the EV-SWEI signal; and the image processor is configured to map the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from the EV-SWEI signal. [see FIG. 13 and [0137]-[0138] of Gallippi]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that the signal generator is configured to generate the EV-SWEI signal; and the image processor is configured to map the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from the EV-SWEI signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
Regarding claim 7, Baghani further discloses that the imaging processor is configured to determine the one or more viscoelastic properties of a body region of a living subject at a plurality of points within that body region by:
establishing a shear wave field within the body region [see [0056] and [0101] of Baghani disclosing establishing shear wave fields in the range of 2-1000Hz in the body]
measuring a characteristic of the shear wave field at each of the plurality of points; [see [0067] the displacement of each point in the field is measured]
computing, at each of the plurality of points, a rate of change of the characteristic with respect to positional change within the body region; and [see [0133] of Baghani disclosing observing the changes in displacement as the probe is moved in various places of the tissue]
determining, from the computed rate of change at each of the plurality of points, one or more viscoelastic properties of the body region at the plurality of points. [see [0134]; the elasticity at various points in a 2D plane is calculated]
Regarding claim 8, Baghani further discloses that the imaging processor is further configured to establish, using at least one vibration source, a field of shear waves within the body region. [see [0056] and [0101] of Baghani disclosing establishing shear wave fields in the range of 2-1000Hz in the body]
Regarding claim 9, Baghani further discloses that the one or more viscoelastic properties comprises at least one of stiffness, elasticity, viscosity, attenuation, wave speed, phase angle, and frequency dispersion. [see [0134]; the elasticity at various points in a 2D plane is calculated]
Regarding claim 10, Baghani further discloses that the signal generator generates the vibration signal that is configured to subject the body region to shear wave inducing vibrations delivered at a plurality of audio frequencies. [see [0056] and [0101] of Baghani disclosing establishing shear wave fields in the range of 2-1000Hz in the body which is within the audible range of (20-20Khz)
Regarding claim 11, Baghani discloses a method for making an ultrasound elastography diagnostic apparatus, [see abstract of Baghani] the method comprising:
communicatively coupling an input electrical interface to the one or more vibratory devices that are configured to generate a vibtaiopn [see [0125] and FIG. 23; the interface 1705 is connected to vibration driver 101]
and communicatively coupling an output electrical interface to the ultrasound probe. [see FIG. 23 and [0125]; the signal generator 1794 is connected to the signal generator 101 through an electrical interface 1705]
Baghani does not expressly disclose that the vibration generated is one of an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) push pulse; and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) vibration; and attaching one or more vibratory devices to a vibration isolation component; forming a probe assembly by attaching the vibration isolation component to an ultrasound probe configured to detect vibrations passing through subject tissue;
Gallippi, directed towards shear wave measurement of tissue [see abstract of Gallippi] further discloses that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; [see [0076] of Gallippi] and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal, [see [0137] of Gallippi]
Murakoshi, directed towards design of an ultrasound probe with vibration isolation [see abstract of Murakoshi] further discloses and attaching one or more vibratory devices to a vibration isolation component;; [vibration insulating member 4; see FIG. 4A-C and [00590]] forming a probe assembly by attaching the vibration isolation component to an ultrasound probe configured to detect vibrations passing through subject tissue; ; [see FIG.s 4A-C; since the insulating member is placed at the end of the probe around the transducer, and the vibration source of Baghani is located inside the probe, the vibratory devices 101 of Baghani are only connected to the transducers via the insulating members 4]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that signal generated such that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to be able to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that the signal generated such that that it includes a vibration isolation component; and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component according to the teachings of Murakoshi in order to narrow the propagation surface of the vibration to the target region and create a more precise localized measurement [see [0014] of Murakoshi]
Regarding claim 12, Baghani further discloses communicatively coupling the input electrical interface to a signal generator configured to generate a corresponding one of the ARFI push pulse and the EV-SWEI vibration [see FIG. 23 and [0125]; the signal generator 1794 is connected to the signal generator 101 through an electrical interface 1705]; and communicatively coupling the output electrical interface to an image processor [see FIG. 23; the electoral interface 1707 connects the probe to the GPU 1708 which processes the images; see also [0126]] configured to generate a map of one or more viscoelastic properties from the information contained in the data received by the ultrasound probe. [see FIG. 23 and [0126]]
Regarding claim 14, Baghani discloses a method of performing an ultrasound elastography diagnostic procedure [see abstract of Baghani], the method comprising:
positioning a probe assembly into contact with subject tissue, the probe assembly [probe assembly of FIG. 2] comprising:
an ultrasound probe [transducer array 502] configured to detect vibrations passing through subject tissue; [see [0116] of Parker]
(ii) one or more vibratory devices coupled to the ultrasound probe [vibration sources see FIG. 9 and [0045]]
transmitting the signal to the one or more vibratory devices to produce a corresponding vibration; [see FIG. 23 and [0125]; the signal generator 1794 is connected to the signal generator 101 through an electrical interface 1705] tracking with the ultrasound probe the tissue displacements resulting from the corresponding vibration [see [0077]-[0079]] and mapping at an image processor, one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements. [see FIG. 23 and [0126]]
Baghani does not expressly disclose that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal, a vibration isolation component; and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component;
Gallippi, directed towards shear wave measurement of tissue [see abstract of Gallippi] further discloses that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; [see [0076] of Gallippi] and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal, [see [0137] of Gallippi]
Murakoshi, directed towards design of an ultrasound probe with vibration isolation [see abstract of Murakoshi] further discloses a vibration isolation component; [vibration insulating member 4; see FIG. 4A-C and [00590]] and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component; [see FIG.s 4A-C; since the insulating member is placed at the end of the probe around the transducer, and the vibration source of Baghani is located inside the probe, the vibratory devices 101 of Baghani are only connected to the transducers via the insulating members 4]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that signal generated such that the signal generated is one of (i) an acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) signal; and (ii) an external vibration shear wave elastography imaging (EV-SWEI) signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to be able to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that the signal generated such that that it includes a vibration isolation component; and that the one or more vibratory devices are coupled to the ultrasound probe via the vibration isolation component according to the teachings of Murakoshi in order to narrow the propagation surface of the vibration to the target region and create a more precise localized measurement [see [0014] of Murakoshi]
Regarding claim 15, Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 14 [see rejection of claim 14]
Gallippi further discloses that the signal generator is configured to generate the ARFI signal; [see [0076]-[0078 of Gallippi] and the generating the ARFI signal; and mapping the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from the ARFI signal. [see [0078]-[0079]; the shear modulus is tracked and mapped]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that it includes generating the ARFI signal; and mapping the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from the ARFI signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
Regarding claim 16, Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 14 [see rejection of claim 14]
Gallippi further discloses that generating the EV-SWEI signal; and mapping the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from the EV-SWEI signal. [see FIG. 13 and [0137]-[0138] of Gallippi]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such that generating the EV-SWEI signal; and mapping the one or more viscoelastic properties derived from the tracked tissue displacements that results from the EV-SWEI signal according to the teachings of Gallippi in order to to track the shear wave propagations both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region [see [0005] of Gallippi]
Regarding claim 17, Baghani further discloses that determining the one or more viscoelastic properties of a body region of a living subject at a plurality of points within that body region by:
establishing a shear wave field within the body region [see [0056] and [0101] of Baghani disclosing establishing shear wave fields in the range of 2-1000Hz in the body]
measuring a characteristic of the shear wave field at each of the plurality of points; [see [0067] the displacement of each point in the field is measured]
computing, at each of the plurality of points, a rate of change of the characteristic with respect to positional change within the body region; and [see [0133] of Baghani disclosing observing the changes in displacement as the probe is moved in various places of the tissue]
determining, from the computed rate of change at each of the plurality of points, one or more viscoelastic properties of the body region at the plurality of points. [see [0134]; the elasticity at various points in a 2D plane is calculated]
Regarding claim 18, Baghani further discloses that creating a field of shear waves within the body region. [see [0056] and [0101] of Baghani disclosing establishing shear wave fields in the range of 2-1000Hz in the body]
Regarding claim 19, Baghani further discloses that the one or more viscoelastic properties comprises at least one of stiffness, elasticity, viscosity, attenuation, wave speed, phase angle, and frequency dispersion. [see [0134]; the elasticity at various points in a 2D plane is calculated]
Regarding claim 20, Baghani further discloses that subjecting the body region to shear-inducing vibration delivered at a plurality of frequencies. [see [0056] and [0101] of Baghani disclosing establishing shear wave fields in the range of 2-1000Hz in the body]
Regarding claim 21, Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Murakoshi further discloses that the vibration isolation component comprises a damping material configured to absorb shock and isolate vibration between the vibratory devices and the ultrasound device or array of ultrasound devices. [see [0055]; the isolation element comprises of material such as rubber, resin or cork that is capable of damping any vibration around the transducer including the vibrations of the vibratory device]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani as modified by Gallipi and Murakoshi such that the vibration isolation component comprises a damping material configured to absorb shock and isolate vibration between the vibratory devices and the ultrasound device or array of ultrasound devices according to the teachings of Murakoshi in order to narrow the propagation surface of the vibration to the target region and create a more precise localized measurement [see [0014] of Murakoshi]
Regarding claim 22, Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Baghani dislcsoesa that the vibratory device is directly built into the probe [vibration sources see FIG. 9 and [0045]]
Murakoshi further discloses that the at least a portion of the vibration isolation component are built directly into the ultrasound probe.[see FIG. 6; the isolation element is directly into the ultrasound probe]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani as modified by Gallipi and Murakoshi such and at least a portion of the vibration isolation component are built directly into the ultrasound probe according to the teachings of Murakoshi in order to narrow the propagation surface of the vibration to the target region and create a more precise localized measurement [see [0014] of Murakoshi]
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baghani et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0330122) hereinafter “Baghani” in view of Gallippi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0239775) hereinafter “Gallippi” and Murakoshi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0202250) hereinafter “Murakoshi” as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gelly et al. (U.S. Patent No 5109860) hereinafter “Gelly”.
Regarding claim 2, Baghani in view of Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Baghani in view of Gallippi and Murakoshi does not expressly disclose that the one or more vibratory devices comprises one or more piezoelectric bars.
Gelly, directed towards a transducer probe [see abstract of Gelly], further discloses that the one or more vibratory devices comprises one or more piezoelectric bars. [see column 2, lines 63-67 disclosing a piezoelectric bar used to generated vibrations]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani such the one or more vibratory devices comprises one or more piezoelectric bars according to the teachings of Gelly since doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of vibratory device with another and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale C)
Regarding claim 13, Baghani in view of Gallippi and Murakoshi discloses all the limitations of claim 11 [see rejection of claim 11]
Baghani in view of Gallippi and Murakoshi does not expressly disclose that the one or more vibratory devices comprises one or more piezoelectric bars.
Gelly, directed towards a transducer probe [see abstract of Gelly], further discloses that the one or more vibratory devices comprises one or more piezoelectric bars. [see column 2, lines 63-67 disclosing a piezoelectric bar used to generated vibrations]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi such the one or more vibratory devices comprises one or more piezoelectric bars according to the teachings of Gelly since doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of vibratory device with another and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale C)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under U.S.C. 103 over Baghani as modified by Gallippi and Murakoshi, the applicant has argued that:
Murakoshi’s vibratio insulating member is not a vibration isolation component as claimed because it is not isolating or limiting vibration feedback of the vibratory source,
In response the examiner notes that the language of the claim doesn’t specify what vibration does the isolation component limit. The claim merely requites a vibration isolation component and that the vibratory device would be coupled to the ultrasound porbe via the isolation component. Firstly, the word “ultrasound probe” is an indefinite term as it is explained in the rejection section above, it is not clear if it’s referring to the entire probe device or only the transducer array. Further, since the isolation component of Murakoshi is around the transducer, the vibrations of the vibratory device would couple to the transducer at least partially through the isolation element. The applicant is advised to use more specific language to distinguish the claim from prior art.
Baghani teaches direct coupling between the vibration deived and the transducers, rather than isolating them.
The examiner notes that even though Baghani’s design is based on a direct coupling, Baghani does not teach against providing an isolation element, and the isolation element does not make the design of Baghani inoperable in any way. Therefore, the combination of Baghani and Murakoshi is an improvement to a device ready for improvement and the argument against the combination is not persuasive.
No motivation to combine Gallaippi with Baghani
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation comes directly from Gallippi so that the shear wave propagation can be tracked both quantitatively and qualitatively in the target region.
III. Regarding claims 2 and 13, the applicant has argued that Gelly is directed to fabrication of ultrasound transducer arrays and does not teach using piezo bars and vibratory devices or a methods of generating elastography inducing vibrations.
In response, the examiner notes that Gelly is merely used to show the details of the claim directed towards the structure of the transducer array. The use of piezo bars as vibratory devie and generation of elastography vibrations is disclosed by other references in the rejection. Gelly was not used to show all of those features and therefore does not have to show all features of the claim.
IV. Regarding claim 3, the applicant has argued against Hagerstrom.
In response, the examiner notes that in view of applicant’s amendments, the rejection is modified and Hagerstrom is no longer used. Therefore, the arguments against Hagerstrom are considered moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights