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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20, 23, 25, 27, and 29-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea without significantly more.
In a test for patent subject matter eligibility, the claims pass Step 1 (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility), as they are related to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
When assessed under Step2A, Prong I, claim 3 is found to recite a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea). In this instance, claim 3 recites the limitation “identifying in said processed scan data of said body volume reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof”. The cited limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a mental process (i.e. abstract idea) of identifying which can be performed in the mind or by a human using a pen and a paper (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In other words, a person could reasonably look at image data and identify reproductive tissue (e.g. ovaries,follicles, etc.) and/or changes thereof. Examiner notes that there is nothing in the claims that preclude the limitation from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper, thus the cited limitation(s) recites a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(a)) and the claim must be reviewed under Step 2A, Prong II to determine patent eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong II determines whether any claim recites an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claims recites the following additional element(s):
Stabilizing a probe within a body cavity comprising a vagina of a subject (claim 1)
Scanning a volume of a body region by a scanner of said probe without moving said probe relative to said body cavity (claim 1)
Wherein an actuator moves the probe to scan the volume with a scanning angle in a range of at least 50 degrees (claim 1)
Processing scan data acquired during said scanning (claim 3)
The additional elements in the cited independent claim are not found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In this case, stabilizing, scanning, the actuator moving the probe and processing are found to be merely insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering and are merely linked to the field of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and it is noted that the actuator moving the probe to scan the volume is found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound as evidenced by NPL Baba (“Transvaginal Probe: Technical Aspect”) and NPL Merz (“three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound in gynecological diagnosis”). These elements are seen as adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They do no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, under step 2A Prong II the Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements of claim 3 and the claims must be reviewed under Step 2B to determine patent eligibility.
The additional elements listed above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this instance, as noted above the additional elements amount to mere data gathering in the field of 3D transvaginal ultrasound. Additionally there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. Therefore, under Step 2B in a test for patent subject matter eligibility, the judicial exception of the independent claim(s) do not amount to significantly more and the independent claim(s) remain patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 4-6 and 8-9 further limit the abstract idea of claim 3. When analyzed as a whole, these claims are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea and do not sufficiently integrate the subject matter into a practical application or recite elements which constitute significantly more than the abstract ideas identified. The dependent claims are directed toward additional elements which encompass abstract ideas
In this instance, dependent claims recite the following limitations:
Determining a relation between said scan data to previously acquired scan data or indications thereof, and wherein said identifying comprises identifying said reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof based on said determined relation (claim 4)
Comparing said scan data to previously acquired scan data or indications thereof, and wherein said identifying comprises identifying said reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof based on said comparison results (claim 5)
Identifying changes in at least one parameter of said at least one follicle and/or at least one parameter of said at least one ovary (claim 6)
The cited limitation(s), under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes (i.e. abstract idea) which can be performed in the mind or by a human using a pen and a paper (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). In other words, a human could reasonably compare data and determine a relation between data and identify changes in a parameter. Examiner notes that there is nothing in the claims that preclude the limitation from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper, thus the claimed limitation is considered to be directed towards a judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Under Step 2A, Prong II for dependent claims 4-6 and 8-9 present additional elements which only further narrow the judicial exceptions (e.g. claim 6 which further narrow the nature of the reproductive tissue to comprise at least one ovary and/or at least one follicle, claim 8 which further narrow the at least one parameter indicating a level of stimulation or maturation, claim 9 which further narrows the at least one parameter to comprise a size, shape, texture and/or position of said at least one follicle or a number of follicles in said at least one ovary, position of said at least one ovary, and/or size of said at least one ovary) and provide no additional element which are found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
These dependent claims include no additional claims that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, there is no improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field, and there is no transformation of subject matter into a different state. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional claims do not provide any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under Step 2B, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 1, 2, 11-12, and 14 are not found to recite a judicial exception and are thus considered patent eligible under 101.
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 14 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 1 recites the limitation “scanning a volume of a body region by a scanner of said probe without moving said probe relative to said body cavity; wherein an actuator moves the probe to scan the volume with a scanning angle in a range of at least 50 degrees”. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as the claim first recites scanning without moving said probe and further recites the actuator moves the probe to scan the volume, thus contradicting itself as to whether the probe moves or does not move. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted that the probe may either move via the actuator or not move during scanning, however, clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “scan the volume with a scanning angle in a range of at least 50 degrees”. It is unclear what the scanning angle is with respect to. In other words, it is unclear what from which reference point/structure the scanning angle corresponds to (e.g. 50 degrees rotationally (e.g. radial angle) from a starting point of the probe, 50 degrees with respect to an anatomical reference, etc.).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a scanner of said probe”. It is unclear if this is the same scanner recited previously or if this is a different scanner. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any scanner, however, clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “reversibly expanding”. It is unclear what is meant by reversibly expanding in the context of the method. In other words, the claim recites that stabilizing comprises reversibly expanding thus it is unclear if the stabilizing includes expanding and said expanding is reversible or if the claim is reciting a reversed expansion (e.g. retraction). For examination purposes, it has been interpreted that the stabilizing comprises expanding an anchor and that the expanding is reversible, however, clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Owen et al. (US 20130261466 A1), hereinafter Owen.
Regarding claim 1,
Owen teaches a method for scanning a pelvic region (at least fig. 5), comprising:
Stabilizing a probe within a body cavity comprising a vagina of a subject ([0071] which discloses the probe is inserted into the cavity which the imaging procedure will take place. For example, where the probe is a transvaginal probe, the probe 102 is inserted into the vaginal cavity of the patient being scanned, etc.. Examiner notes that insertion of the probe into the vaginal cavity is considered stabilizing in its broadest reasonable interpretation in that once inserted it is stabilized by at least the walls of the vaginal cavity or otherwise stabilized within the patient);
Scanning a volume of a body region by a scanner of said probe without moving said probe relative to said body cavity ([0072] which disclose the transducer array is rotated through the angular range for the scan and ultrasound data is acquired. Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that upon insertion and acquisition, the probe is not considered moving relative to said body cavity in that it is held in place while the ultrasound data is acquired, i.e. held stationary)
wherein an actuator moves the probe to scan the volume with a scanning angle in a range of at least 50 degree ([0076] which discloses the shaft rotates counter clockwise to move the transducer array 222 from the home rotational position 602 to the default start scan rotational position. During a 360 degree scan, the shaft rotates the transducer array 222 360 degrees. See also [0019]).
Regarding claim 2,
Owen further teaches wherein said scanning comprising scanning said body volume by emitting an ultrasound beam towards said body region volume from said scanner ([0023]-[0024] disclosing the transmission of signals by activating one or more elements of transducer 102 (i.e. ultrasound transducer [0017], thus scanning comprises emitting an ultrasound beam towards said body region volume), wherein said scanner comprises at least one ultrasound transducer ([0072] which discloses the transducer array is rotated through the angular range for the scan and ultrasound data is acquired. Where the acquisition covers an angular range of greater than on hundred and eighty degrees, this includes rotating the transducer array more than one hundred and eighty degrees).
Regarding claim 12,
Owen further teaches moving said scanner relative to said probe prior to, during and/or following said scanning (at least fig. 5 (506 and/or 510) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0069] and [0072])
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 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen in view of Ramachandran et al. (US 20190374193 A1), hereinafter Ramachandran.
Regarding claim 3,
Owen teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Owen further teaches processing scan data acquired during said scanning (at least fig. 5 (512) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0073]);
Owens fails to explicitly teach further comprising identifying in said processed scan data of said body volume, reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof.
Nonetheless, Ramachandran, in a similar filed of endeavor involving trans-vaginal ultrasound, teaches identifying, in processed scan data acquired by a probe inserted into a cavity including a vaginal canal ([0042] which discloses the ultrasound probe is suitable for performing a transvaginal ultrasound scan on a female patient and [0055]), reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof ([0057] which discloses the clinician may have a number of reasons for such an evaluation, such as the assessment of the fertility of the female patient and/or monitoring of the ovulation cycle of the female patient, as during the ovulation cycle one or more-follicles 152 may develop, i.e. increase in diameter. During such ovarian stimulation, multiple follicles 152 may be recruited and grow, although the growth rate of such follicles is typically different to each other. The development of the number of follicles 152 and their respective growth rates may be used by the clinician to tailor a treatment regime to the individual needs of the female patient in order to maximize the chance of successful fertilization. See also [0042] which discloses The ultrasound system 100 may be applied to inspect a volume of an anatomical site, in particular an anatomical site of a patient 12 over time, such as a vaginal region of a female patient as shown, e.g. to monitor the effectiveness of a fertility treatment administered to the patient and [0013]-[0015] disclosing the ovary and follicle detection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Owen to include identifying reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof as taught by Ramachandran in order to allow for monitoring the effectiveness of a fertility treatment of the female patient (Ramachandran [0017] and [0042]) and/or monitoring the ovulation cycle of the female patient (Ramachandran [0057]). Such a modification would allow for performing useful evaluations of female patients using the processed image data accordingly.
Regarding claim 4,
Owen, as applied to claim 3 above, further teaches wherein said processing comprises determining a relation between said scan data to previously acquired scan data or indications thereof, and wherein said identifying comprises identifying said reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof based on said determined relation ([0057] which discloses the clinician may have a number of reasons for such an evaluation, such as the assessment of the fertility of the female patient and/or monitoring of the ovulation cycle of the female patient, as during the ovulation cycle one or more-follicles 152 may develop, i.e. increase in diameter. During such ovarian stimulation, multiple follicles 152 may be recruited and grow, although the growth rate of such follicles is typically different to each other. The development of the number of follicles 152 and their respective growth rates may be used by the clinician to tailor a treatment regime to the individual needs of the female patient in order to maximize the chance of successful fertilization. See also [0042] which discloses The ultrasound system 100 may be applied to inspect a volume of an anatomical site, in particular an anatomical site of a patient 12 over time, such as a vaginal region of a female patient as shown, e.g. to monitor the effectiveness of a fertility treatment administered to the patient. Examiner notes that such monitoring over time and monitoring of the ovulation cycle to identify increase in diameter/number of follicles over time necessarily require determining a relation between said scan data to previously acquired scan data or indications thereof (i.e. a number or size of follicles determined in previous scan data))
Regarding claim 5,
Owen, as applied to claim 3 above, further teaches wherein said processing comprises determining a relation between said scan data to previously acquired scan data or indications thereof, and wherein said identifying comprises identifying said reproductive tissue and/or changes thereof based on said determined relation ([0057] which discloses the clinician may have a number of reasons for such an evaluation, such as the assessment of the fertility of the female patient and/or monitoring of the ovulation cycle of the female patient, as during the ovulation cycle one or more-follicles 152 may develop, i.e. increase in diameter. During such ovarian stimulation, multiple follicles 152 may be recruited and grow, although the growth rate of such follicles is typically different to each other. The development of the number of follicles 152 and their respective growth rates may be used by the clinician to tailor a treatment regime to the individual needs of the female patient in order to maximize the chance of successful fertilization. See also [0042] which discloses The ultrasound system 100 may be applied to inspect a volume of an anatomical site, in particular an anatomical site of a patient 12 over time, such as a vaginal region of a female patient as shown, e.g. to monitor the effectiveness of a fertility treatment administered to the patient. Examiner notes that such monitoring over time and monitoring of the ovulation cycle to identify increase in diameter/number of follicles over time necessarily require comparing said scan data to previously acquired scan data or indications thereof (i.e. a number or size of follicles determined in previous scan data))
Regarding claim 6,
Owen, as applied to claim 3 above, further teaches wherein said reproductive tissue comprises at least one ovary of said subject; and/or wherein said reproductive tissue comprises at least one follicle and wherein said identifying comprises identifying change in at least one parameter of said at least one follicle and/or at least one parameter of said at least one ovary ([0057] which discloses the clinician may have a number of reasons for such an evaluation, such as the assessment of the fertility of the female patient and/or monitoring of the ovulation cycle of the female patient, as during the ovulation cycle one or more-follicles 152 may develop, i.e. increase in diameter. During such ovarian stimulation, multiple follicles 152 may be recruited and grow, although the growth rate of such follicles is typically different to each other. The development of the number of follicles 152 and their respective growth rates may be used by the clinician to tailor a treatment regime to the individual needs of the female patient in order to maximize the chance of successful fertilization. See also [0042] which discloses The ultrasound system 100 may be applied to inspect a volume of an anatomical site, in particular an anatomical site of a patient 12 over time, such as a vaginal region of a female patient as shown, e.g. to monitor the effectiveness of a fertility treatment administered to the patient).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Owen, as currently modified, to include identifying the ovary and/or follicle and identifying change in at least one parameter of said at least one follicle as taught by Ramachandran in order to allow for monitoring the effectiveness of a fertility treatment of the female patient (Ramachandran [0017] and [0042]) and/or monitoring the ovulation cycle of the female patient (Ramachandran [0057]). Such a modification would allow for performing useful evaluations of female patients using the processed image data accordingly.
Regarding claim 8,
Owen, as applied to claim 6 above further teaches, wherein said identified changes in said at least one parameter of said at least one follicle and/or at least one parameter of said ovary indicating a level of stimulation or maturation of said at least one follicle ([0057] which discloses the clinician may have a number of reasons for such an evaluation, such as the assessment of the fertility of the female patient and/or monitoring of the ovulation cycle of the female patient, as during the ovulation cycle one or more-follicles 152 may develop, i.e. increase in diameter. During such ovarian stimulation, multiple follicles 152 may be recruited and grow, although the growth rate of such follicles is typically different to each other. The development of the number of follicles 152 and their respective growth rates may be used by the clinician to tailor a treatment regime to the individual needs of the female patient in order to maximize the chance of successful fertilization. See also [0042] which discloses The ultrasound system 100 may be applied to inspect a volume of an anatomical site, in particular an anatomical site of a patient 12 over time, such as a vaginal region of a female patient as shown, e.g. to monitor the effectiveness of a fertility treatment administered to the patient)
Regarding claim 9,
Ramachandran, as applied to claim 8 above, further teaches wherein said at least one parameter of said at least one follicle comprises at least size of said at least one follicle; and/or wherein said at least one parameter of said at least one ovary comprises a number of follicles in said at least one ovary ([0057] which discloses the clinician may have a number of reasons for such an evaluation, such as the assessment of the fertility of the female patient and/or monitoring of the ovulation cycle of the female patient, as during the ovulation cycle one or more-follicles 152 may develop, i.e. increase in diameter. During such ovarian stimulation, multiple follicles 152 may be recruited and grow, although the growth rate of such follicles is typically different to each other. The development of the number of follicles 152 and their respective growth rates may be used by the clinician to tailor a treatment regime to the individual needs of the female patient in order to maximize the chance of successful fertilization. See also [0042] which discloses The ultrasound system 100 may be applied to inspect a volume of an anatomical site, in particular an anatomical site of a patient 12 over time, such as a vaginal region of a female patient as shown, e.g. to monitor the effectiveness of a fertility treatment administered to the patient)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen in view of Sham et al. (US 20240050024 A1), hereinafter Sham.
Regarding claim 11,
Owen teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Owen further teaches wherein said method comprises moving an upper part of a body of said subject prior to and/or during said scanning (Examiner notes that positioning a patient including an upper part of the body prior to scanning the subject and/or natural movement of an upper part of a body during scanning would necessarily occur as a part of the procedure)
Owen fails to explicitly teach wherein said stabilizing comprises stabilizing said scanner of said probe within said body while said subject sits on said probe.
Sham, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches stabilizing a scanner of probe within a body while said subject sits on said probe (fig. 24 depicting a probe 2430 stabilized within a patient using a membrane 2410 and see corresponding disclosure in at least [0326]-[0327] which discloses the membrane and frame may form part of a jockstrap or other element of clothing such as tights, leggings, etc. as well. [0166] which discloses the measurements performed within Structural 112 and Force, Strain and Distension 114 may be statically acquired, i.e. with the user sitting/laying/standing within a clinic as well as [0328] which discloses sitting upon analysis/measurement equipment [0150] All measurements are taken on Valsalva except TVL. A clinician may employ a manual procedure to measure the basic six or full nine points Aa, Ba, C, D, Ap, Bp, GH, TVL, and PB, respectively. This may be via the use of a ruler, swab, or other mechanical measuring device. The necessary user-specific structural/anatomical parameters may also be derived from one or more imaging techniques including, but not limited to, ultrasound imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), elastography, acoustic analysis, tactile imaging, photoacoustic (optoacoustic) imaging, tomography, echocardiography, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and electrical impedance tomography. Alternatively, mechanical based devices may be employed to perform measurements and/or support one or more transducers for one or more imaging techniques, manual processes etc. Further these measurements may be at least one intravaginal, translabial, and transperineal. See also [0295] which discloses accordingly, with the user sitting on the seat and the seat cover with the balloon inserted into the vagina, measurements can be performed with the VAMA system but also with the ultrasound probe 850 which is disposed beneath the seat820 and seat cover 810 and/or at least fig. 17 depicting a probe 1760 inserted between cushions while the patient sits on said probe and disclosure in at least [0319]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the stabilizing of Owen to include stabilizing while sitting on the probe as taught by Sham in order to allow for measurements to be performed for a comfortable duration while the patient is sitting (Sham [0328]). Such a modification would therefore enhance the comfort of the user with prolonged duration of measurements accordingly. Thereby allowing for enhanced measurement of the vaginal canal over time. Furthermore, such a modification amounts to merely a simple substitution of one known insertion/stabilizing position for another yielding predictable results with respect to probe stabilization, thereby rendering the claim obvious (MPEP 2143).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Owen in view of WIPO Timor et al. (WO 2008104888 A2), hereinafter Timor.
Regarding claim 14,
Owen teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Owen fails to explicitly teach wherein said stabilizing comprising stabilizing a scanner of said probe at a distance smaller than 5 cm from an external cervix orifice or from a vaginal fornix and/or wherein said stabilizing comprises reversibly expanding an anchor coupled to said probe within said body cavity.
Timor, in a similar field of endeavor involving intracavity probes, teaches wherein stabilizing comprises reversibly expanding an anchor coupled to a probe within a body cavity ([00103]-[00104] which discloses the inflatable balloon is inserted into the vaginal cavity in order to allow the anchoring of the probe. See also [0045]-[0046] disclosing the intracavity probe includes a plurality of anchoring units that anchor the intracavity probe inside of the body cavity and individually controlling extension or retraction of each of the anchoring units)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the stabilizing of Owen to include reversibly expanding an anchor coupled to the probe within a body cavity as taught by Timor in order to anchor the probe to the vaginal cavity which prevents the probe from moving during the performance of the scan (Timor [0089]). Such a modification would enhance the quality of the imaging performed by Owen by ensuring that the probe itself is not moving during the scan accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steininger et al. (US 20030055338 A1) teaches a method for scanning a pelvic region, comprising:
Stabilizing a probe within a body cavity comprising a vagina of a subject (Abstract which discloses Repositioning the transducer array within the probe allows for imaging a variety of areas of a patient without moving the probe housing within the patient. See also [0027] disclosing different angular positions within the patient [0005] which discloses the ultrasonic probe may be a rectal probe, an endovaginal probe, a small part probe producing a sector-shaped scan plane, or a small linear probe producing a rectangular-shaped scan plane);
Scanning a volume of a body region by a scanner of said probe without moving said probe relative to said body cavity ([0021] which discloses the scan probe 10 may be held stationary at one angle relative to a patient, while the transducer array 17 moves the scan plane away from a central scan plane 54 of the scan probe 10)
wherein an actuator moves the probe to scan the volume with a scanning angle in a range of at least 50 degree ([0018] which discloses stepper motor, thus moves the transducer array along an arc as the drive shaft rotates around the pivotal axis and [0019] which discloses In a rectal probe, for example, the sweep angle range may be 67 degrees each way from a zero or center line. Other probes for other applications may have different ranges of sweep angles. Also, rectal probes may have sweep angle ranges other than 67 degrees, the sweep angle range may be 67 degrees each way from a zero or center line. Other probes for other applications may have different ranges of sweep angles)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE L KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 5712700552. 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.
/BROOKE LYN KLEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797