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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20, on pages 5-6 that generating Lamb waves, detecting ultrasonic energy, and determining frequency-resolved wave speed data, cannot be mentally accomplished, as these steps require the use of specialized ultrasound equipment. However, examiner notes that none of the claims recite any specialized ultrasound equipment. Claim 1 only recites a generic transducer, and claim 11 merely recites a generic transducer and a computer system.
Applicant further asserts on pages 6-9 that the additional elements of the claims integrate the judicial exception identified in the rejection, into a practical application as the method requires coordinated system of specialized components. However, Applicant merely lists generic components such as transducers, ultrasonic detection systems, and signal processing, without any particular details that would differentiate the claimed “specialized equipment” from generic components.
Applicant further asserts on page 7 that the invention solves a specific technical problem with technological improvements. However, the technological improvements identified are in fact technological improvements identified by the prior art as having become routine and conventional aspect of Lamb wave based pressure or elasticity measurements.
Applicant further remarks on page 8 that the claims include limitations that transform the judicial exception into a concrete medical diagnostic method and system with specific technological requirements and practical applications. However,
Applicant further argues on pages 8-9 that the inventive concept of the instant application is beyond well-understood, routine, conventional activity. However, the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Fatemi questions the inventiveness of the instant application.
Applicant further argues on page 9 that the claims are eligible because there is a practical application with real-world utility. However, as previously established above, the claims as presented are no more than generic components for performing routine, conventional activities.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 that prior art Fatemi fails to determine pressure of the bladder directly from frequency-resolved wave speed data.
Examiner respectively disagrees.
A simple rearrangement of equation 15 in [0071],
PNG
media_image1.png
40
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
shows a direct relationship between the dynamic pressure, p, and the velocity, ů.
Therefore Fatemi teaches a direct correlation between pressure and the speed data as required by the claims and hence the claims stand rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: YES – Claim 1 recites A method for determining a kinetic value of a tissue volume and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claim recites the following limitations:
determining frequency-resolved wave speed data for the generated Lamb waves from the ultrasonic echo data; and determining pressure of the tissue volume directly from the determined frequency-resolved wave speed data.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a user simply calculating the wave speed data in her/his mind or by hand and then using that to calculate the pressure. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: “with a transducer, generating Lamb waves in a tissue wall of the tissue volume using radiation force, wherein the tissue volume is formed by the tissue wall that spatially separates a fluid material from a rigid material; forming ultrasonic echo data by detecting ultrasonic energy reflected by multiple locations along the tissue volume that is subject to the radiation force”. The Lamb wave generating and the ultrasonic echo data forming steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of acquiring ultrasound data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-extra-solution activity. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the Lamb wave generating and the ultrasonic echo data forming steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting and comparing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein determining the kinetic value includes determining pressure and includes optimization-based curve fitting a dispersion relation that includes the frequency-resolved wave speed data”, which merely specifies the parameter being measured and hence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the dispersion relation includes a geometry of the tissue volume, which merely specifies the variables required for the calculation and hence fails to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the geometry is at least one of a sphere or cylinder which merely specifies the region of interest and hence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein an undeformed inner volume of the at least one sphere or cylinder is determined from a wall thickness of the tissue wall of the tissue volume, which merely specifies the region of interest and hence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites determining axial particle velocities in the tissue wall using a phase-based autocorrelation technique, which comprise further calculations from the echo data and hence fails to integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein determining frequency-resolved wave speed data includes performing a 2D Fourier transformation of the determined axial particle velocities, which merely includes further calculations in the frequency domain, without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites determining signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and rejecting axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR), which is merely filtering steps applied to the axial particle velocity data which is further data processing that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the tissue volume is a bladder, and the tissue wall is a wall of the bladder, which merely specifies the tissue to which the data gathering steps are applied and thence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites adjusting a dispersion relation for a curvature of the bladder wall, which forms part of optimizing the data gathering step and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 1: Statutory Category: YES – Claim 11 recites A system for determining a kinetic value of a tissue volume and, therefore, is a device.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES - The claim recites the following limitations:
i) determine frequency-resolved wave speed data from the generated Lamb waves from the ultrasonic echo data; and ii) determine a kinetic value of the tissue volume directly from the determined frequency-resolved wave speed data.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer system” language, the claim encompasses a user simply calculating the wave speed data in her/his mind or by hand and then using that to calculate the pressure. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites additional elements: a transducer configured to generate Lamb waves in a tissue wall of the tissue volume using radiation force and detect ultrasonic energy reflected by multiple locations along the tissue volume that is subject to the radiation force to form ultrasonic echo data, wherein the tissue volume is formed by the tissue wall that spatially separates a fluid material from a rigid material;. The Lamb wave generating and the ultrasonic echo data forming steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of acquiring ultrasound data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-extra-solution activity. The computer system that performs the Lamb wave generating and the ultrasonic echo data forming steps is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the Lamb wave generating and the ultrasonic echo data forming steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the computer system).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (computer system). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the Lamb wave generating and the ultrasonic echo data forming steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer system is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting and comparing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 12 recites “wherein determining the kinetic value includes determining pressure and includes optimization-based curve fitting a dispersion relation that includes the frequency-resolved wave speed data”, which merely specifies the parameter being measured and hence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites wherein the dispersion relation includes a geometry of the tissue volume, which merely specifies the variables required for the calculation and hence fails to incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites wherein the geometry is at least one of a sphere or cylinder which merely specifies the region of interest and hence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 15 recites wherein the computer system is further configured to determine an undeformed inner volume of the at least one sphere or cylinder from a wall thickness of the tissue wall of the tissue volume, which merely specifies the region of interest and hence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 16 recites wherein the computer system is further configured to determine axial particle velocities in the tissue wall using a phase-based autocorrelation technique, which comprise further calculations from the echo data and hence fails to integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites wherein the computer system is further configured to determine frequency-resolved wave speed data by performing a 2D Fourier transformation of the determined axial particle velocities, which merely includes further calculations in the frequency domain, without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites wherein the computer system is further configured to determine signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and reject axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR), which is merely filtering steps applied to the axial particle velocity data which is further data processing that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19 recites wherein the tissue volume is a bladder, and the tissue wall is a wall of the bladder, which merely specifies the tissue to which the data gathering steps are applied and thence fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites wherein the computer system is further configured to adjust a dispersion relation for a curvature of the bladder wall, which forms part of optimizing the data gathering step and therefore fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fatemi, et al., US 20140296709 A1 (disclosed in IDS filed 04/01/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Fatemi teaches a method for determining a kinetic value of a tissue volume (see fig. 5 and [0051] for the method 500), the method comprising:
with a transducer, generating Lamb waves in a tissue wall of the tissue volume using radiation force ([0051] states “UBV uses focused ultrasound to produce a radiation force 604 (push beam) to excite impulsive Lamb waves (200-600 .mu.s in length) in the medium of interest. The radiation force excitation 604 can be, for example, of 600 .mu.s toneburst”),
wherein the tissue volume is formed by the tissue wall that spatially separates a fluid material from a rigid material ([0051]-[0053] describe applying focused ultrasound radiation force to bladder wall filled with fluid);
forming ultrasonic echo data by detecting ultrasonic energy reflected by multiple locations along the tissue volume that is subject to the radiation force ([0041] states “echoes from multiple focused locations can be received to measure vibration information from several points of the tissue. The limitation of the lateral resolution of the transducer for two closely located points can be improved by assigning different transmitting codes for different locations”);
determining frequency-resolved wave speed data for the generated Lamb waves from the ultrasonic echo data ([0056] discloses step 508 which includes calculating change of Lamb wave velocity as a function of time that yields the k-space whose coordinates are frequency, f, and wave number, k using a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (2D-FFT) of the bladder wall motion); and
determining pressure of the tissue volume directly from the determined frequency-resolved wave speed data ([0071]-[0072] disclose determining a dynamic pressure) .
Regarding claim 2, Fatemi further teaches wherein determining the kinetic value includes determining pressure and includes optimization-based curve fitting a dispersion relation that includes the frequency-resolved wave speed data ([0078] discloses fitting the Lamb wave dispersion equation for a flat plate 700 can then be fit to the dispersion data to measure bladder elasticity and viscosity, as well as the estimated thickness of the bladder from the B-mode. Also refer to fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Fatemi further teaches wherein the dispersion relation includes a geometry of the tissue volume (see fig. 7b and [0071] stating finite element analysis of Lamb wave propagation in a bladder wall, modeled by a flat viscoelastic plate 700 and a curved viscoelastic plate 702, shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, can be designed to study the effect of curvature on Lamb wave dispersion).
Regarding claim 4, Fatemi further teaches wherein the geometry is at least one of a sphere or cylinder (abstract indicates that the curved viscoelastic plate 702 correlates to a curved bladder wall).
Regarding claim 5, Fatemi further teaches wherein an undeformed inner volume of the at least one sphere or cylinder is determined from a wall thickness of the tissue wall of the tissue volume ([0070] discloses bladder wall thickness calculations for the eventual determination of the bladder volume. See figs. 10 and 11 and [0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Fatemi further teaches determining axial particle velocities in the tissue wall using a phase-based autocorrelation technique ([0056] disclose steps 508 and 510 which includes calculating change of Lamb wave velocity as a function of time that yields the k-space whose coordinates are frequency, f, and wave number, k using a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (2D-FFT) of the bladder wall motion. Also see [0093] which states that “the complex propagation of a mechanical wave in a soft tissue can be approximated with a shear-wave model (based on consideration of a wave for which the displacement of object particles is perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation, and by definition there are no boundaries in the medium that would affect such propagation) or with a wave model based on the Lamb wave (which is defined for the wave propagates along a plate, or parallel to the surface, with particles moving perpendicularly to the plate surface and, therefore, perpendicularly to the wave propagation direction).”);.
Regarding claim 7, Fatemi further teaches wherein determining frequency-resolved wave speed data includes performing a 2D Fourier transformation of the determined axial particle velocities ([0056] disclose steps 508 and 510 which includes calculating change of Lamb wave velocity as a function of time that yields the k-space whose coordinates are frequency, f, and wave number, k using a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (2D-FFT) of the bladder wall motion).
Regarding claim 9, Fatemi further teaches wherein the tissue volume is a bladder, and the tissue wall is a wall of the bladder (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Fatemi further teaches adjusting a dispersion relation for a curvature of the bladder wall (see [0078] and fig. 9 for the plotting of the dispersion distribution data).
Regarding claim 11, Fatemi a system for determining a kinetic value of a tissue volume, the system ([0033]-[0034]) comprising:
a transducer configured to generate Lamb waves in a tissue wall of the tissue volume using radiation force and detect ultrasonic energy reflected by multiple locations along the tissue volume that is subject to the radiation force to form ultrasonic echo data ([0051] states “UBV uses focused ultrasound to produce a radiation force 604 (push beam) to excite impulsive Lamb waves (200-600 .mu.s in length) in the medium of interest. The radiation force excitation 604 can be, for example, of 600 .mu.s toneburst”),
wherein the tissue volume is formed by the tissue wall that spatially separates a fluid material from a rigid material ([0051]-[0053] describe applying focused ultrasound radiation force to bladder wall filled with fluid);
a computer system ([0092]) configured to:
determine frequency-resolved wave speed data from the generated Lamb waves from the ultrasonic echo data ([0056] discloses step 508 which includes calculating change of Lamb wave velocity as a function of time that yields the k-space whose coordinates are frequency, f, and wave number, k using a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (2D-FFT) of the bladder wall motion); and
ii) determine a kinetic value of the tissue volume based upon the determined frequency-resolved wave speed data ([0071]-[0072] disclose determining a dynamic pressure).
Regarding claim 12, Fatemi further teaches wherein the kinetic value is a pressure and the computer system is further configured to determine the pressure using an optimization- based curve fitting of a dispersion relation that includes the frequency-resolved wave speed data ([0078] discloses fitting the Lamb wave dispersion equation for a flat plate 700 can then be fit to the dispersion data to measure bladder elasticity and viscosity, as well as the estimated thickness of the bladder from the B-mode. Also refer to fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Fatemi further teaches wherein the dispersion relation includes a geometry of the tissue volume (see fig. 7b and [0071] stating finite element analysis of Lamb wave propagation in a bladder wall, modeled by a flat viscoelastic plate 700 and a curved viscoelastic plate 702, shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, can be designed to study the effect of curvature on Lamb wave dispersion).
Regarding claim 14, Fatemi further teaches wherein the geometry is at least one of a sphere or cylinder (abstract indicates that the curved viscoelastic plate 702 correlates to a curved bladder wall).
Regarding claim 15, Fatemi further teaches wherein the computer system is further configured to determine an undeformed inner volume of the at least one sphere or cylinder from a wall thickness of the tissue wall of the tissue volume ([0070] discloses bladder wall thickness calculations for the eventual determination of the bladder volume. See figs. 10 and 11 and [0083]).
Regarding claim 16, Fatemi further teaches wherein the computer system is further configured to determine axial particle velocities in the tissue wall using a phase-based autocorrelation technique ([0056] disclose steps 508 and 510 which includes calculating change of Lamb wave velocity as a function of time that yields the k-space whose coordinates are frequency, f, and wave number, k using a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (2D-FFT) of the bladder wall motion. Also see [0093] which states that “the complex propagation of a mechanical wave in a soft tissue can be approximated with a shear-wave model (based on consideration of a wave for which the displacement of object particles is perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation, and by definition there are no boundaries in the medium that would affect such propagation) or with a wave model based on the Lamb wave (which is defined for the wave propagates along a plate, or parallel to the surface, with particles moving perpendicularly to the plate surface and, therefore, perpendicularly to the wave propagation direction).”).
Regarding claim 17, Fatemi further wherein the computer system is further configured to determine frequency-resolved wave speed data by performing a 2D Fourier transformation of the determined axial particle velocities ([0056] disclose steps 508 and 510 which includes calculating change of Lamb wave velocity as a function of time that yields the k-space whose coordinates are frequency, f, and wave number, k using a two-dimensional fast Fourier transform (2D-FFT) of the bladder wall motion).
Regarding claim 19, Fatemi further teaches wherein the tissue volume is a bladder, and the tissue wall is a wall of the bladder (abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Fatemi further teaches wherein the computer system is further configured to adjust a dispersion relation for a curvature of the bladder wall (see [0078] and fig. 9 for the plotting of the dispersion distribution data).
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatemi in view of Urban, et al., US-20200163649-A1.
Regarding claim 8, Fatemi teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Fatemi fails to teach determining signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and rejecting axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR).
However, within the same field of endeavor, Urban teaches methods for estimating the phase velocity of a shear wave from ultrasound data including determining signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and rejecting axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR) ([0021] describes, with reference to figs. 10A-10C, determination of spatiotemporal particle velocity with a specific SNR value with a polynomial fit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fatemi for determining signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and rejecting axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR), as taught by Urban, for accurate and robust characterization of viscoelastic media using algorithms to reliably extract the phase velocity dispersion and reduce experimental noise in phase gradient and 2D-FT methods ([0009]).
Regarding claim 18, Fatemi teaches all the limitations of claim 16.
Fatemi fails to teach wherein the computer system is further configured to determine signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and reject axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR).
However, within the same field of endeavor, Urban teaches methods for estimating the phase velocity of a shear wave from ultrasound data wherein the computer system is further configured to determine signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and reject axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR) ([0021] describes, with reference to figs. 10A-10C, determination of spatiotemporal particle velocity with a specific SNR value with a polynomial fit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Fatemi wherein the computer system is further configured to determine signal to noise ratios (SNRs) for axial particle velocity data and reject axial particle velocity data with SNRs below a determined threshold signal to noise ratio (SNR), as taught by Urban, for accurate and robust characterization of viscoelastic media using algorithms to reliably extract the phase velocity dispersion and reduce experimental noise in phase gradient and 2D-FT methods ([0009]).
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 Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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 on (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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797