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
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed April 14, 2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-10 have been cancelled and claims 11-12 have been amended. Thus, claims 11-16 are presently pending.
The amendment to the claims noted above are sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings, objections to claims 6 and 11, the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections not reiterated herein, and the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections from the previous Office action. Those objections and rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 recites the limitation "said part". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim considering claim 11 to which claim 16 depends on, does not previously set forth “a part of a body”. Since claim 12 previously sets forth a part of a body, it is suggested to amend claim 16 depends on claim 12 that provides proper antecedence basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/128,238 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations in the body of instant claim 11 are to be found in clam 1 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/128238 in view of previous cited Baek et al. US 20170231598 A1 ("Baek").
Copending application claim 1 is silent as to the features of claims 12 -16.
As to claim 12, Baek illustration Fig. 6B discloses all features of the ultrasonic sensing device as follows:
a first electrode layer ([0169] - “second transmitter electrode 26”);
an ultrasonic emitting layer configured on said first electrode layer ([0169] - “piezoelectric transmitter layer 22” );
a first bias electrode layer configured on said ultrasonic emitting layer ([0169] - “first transmitter electrode 24”);
a thin film transistor layer, configured on said first bias electrode layer, including a pixel array ([0170] - “sensor pixel circuits 32 disposed on a substrate 34 (which also may be referred to herein as a backplane … each sensor pixel circuit 32 may include one or more TFT elements” - Examiner interprets substrate 34 with pixel circuit 32 comprising TFT (i.e. Thin Film Transistor) to read on TFT layer) ;
a pixel input electrode layer configured on said thin film transistor layer ([0170] - “pixel input electrode 38”);
an ultrasonic receiving layer configured on said pixel input electrode layer ([0170] - “piezoelectric receiver layer 36”);
a second bias electrode layer configured on the ultrasonic receiving layer ([0171] - “receiver bias electrode 39”);
a flexible substrate disposed on said second bias electrode layer ([0165] - “back support 650 … implemented with flexible material” and [0171] - “platen 40”); and
wherein flexible substrate is adapted to be attached to a part of a body ([0165] - “back support 650 … implemented with flexible material so that the wearable ultrasound measuring device 600 may wrap around or otherwise conform to the surface of the subject”), said ultrasonic emitting layer emits ultrasonic waves to said part, and receiving reflected ultrasonic waves ([0169-0170]), examiner notes that the recitation “for imaging” is directed to intended use, the modified device of Hussain is capable of receiving reflected ultrasonic waves, for the purpose of imaging. At the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified copending claim 1 with the known features of an ultrasonic sensing device noted above, to predictably perform the same function.
As to claim 13, pending claim 11 has been modified by to include an ultrasound sensing device of Baek, as modified by Baek, see [0160] “the processor 620 may be configured to transmit signals to the ultrasound transmitter layer 614 in order to generate a continuous or pulsed sequence of ultrasonic plane waves, which are emitted from the focusing layer 612 as one or more beams of ultrasound”.
As to claims 14-15, pending claim 11 has been modified by to include an ultrasound sensing device of Baek, as modified by Baek, see [0166] “… the wearable ultrasound measuring device 600 may be incorporated into athletic equipment, such as helmets, racket handles, wrist or headbands, shoes, socks, handle bars, etc., and configured so that the optical sensor(s) contact the skin of a subject” i.e. Baek discloses an embodiment comprising optical sensor(s), examiner takes Official Notice in regards to optical sensors incorporated in athletic equipment include an emitter or light emitting device to emit a light and a photodetector to detect the reflected light which senses a body part.
As to claim 16, this recitation is directed to intended use of the ultrasonic sensing device, the device of claim 11 as modified by Baek is capable of being attached on a body surface adjacent to a neck blood vessel, heart, lungs, a liver or pancreas in light of teachings in [0164] “… the wearable ultrasound measuring device 600 may wrap around or otherwise conform to the surface of the subject, such as a finger, wrist, or other limb” and [0076] “The term "limb" is used herein to refer to a finger, wrist, forearm, ankle, leg, or other body part”.
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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights