DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 11/12/2025 concerning application no. 18/580,241 filed on 01/18/2024.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are pending (Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from consideration).
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 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection, Applicant argues that the Figs. 3-4 and 7 show the angle α.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner reminds Applicant that the claim states “an angle between the axis of the lateral imaging probe and a vertical line of an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer is denoted as α” (emphasis added). While Figs. 3 and 7 show an angle α, it is between the lateral imaging probe (marked as 3) and the horizontal axis. The focused ultrasound transducer (marked as 4) has a vertical axis and does not have an angular relationship with the lateral probe that is indicated as angle α. Horizontal means “b: parallel to, in the plane of, or operating in a plane parallel to the horizon or to a baseline”.1 Vertical means “a: perpendicular to the plane of the horizon or to a primary axis”.2 Figs. 3 and 7 show a horizontal relationship defining the angle α and the claim establishes an angle α that is according to “a vertical line of an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer”. Similarly, Fig. 4 does not create the angle α with respect to the vertical angle. Rather it is according to the horizontal plane of the. temperature measurement ROI region.
Examiner maintains the objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, Applicant argues that the rejection is non-specific and does not include any particular reason why the claim is rejected.
Examiner disagrees. The rejection states “it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.” The claim is replete with numerous 112(b) issues due to lack of antecedent basis, improper mathematical equation structure, partial explanation of variables, conflicting claim language, missing steps, and all the other reasons for the lack of clarity that has been specifically enumerated. Given the amount of issues of the claim as a whole, one with ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain of the claim as a whole.
Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the subject matter must be implemented with technology and cannot be performed mentally or with a pen and paper.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory and without support. MPEP 716.01(c) establishes “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” Furthermore, nothing in the claim establishes that technological components are used in the performance of the mental process. Assuming, arguendo, Applicant established that the use of a processor, the claims would still be ineligible. MPEP 2016.05(a).II. establishes that the gathering and analyzing of information and displaying the result is not an improvement to the technology and MPEP 2106.05(g) establishes the outputting of information is considered to be an insignificant activity. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) establishes that the “courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").”
Examiner maintains the rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an angle between the axis of the lateral imaging probe and a vertical line of an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer is denoted as α” (Claims 7 and 12; emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“moving a lateral imaging probe to an nth scanning layer through a position control module” in claims 7 and 12: Paragraph 0014 discloses “Further the position control module includes a parallel moving mechanism, and the parallel moving mechanism drives the lateral imaging probe to move upward and downward in an axis direction of the focused ultrasound transducer through a bracket”. Paragraph 0017 discloses “Alternatively, the position control module includes a fan-shaped rotating mechanism, and the fan-shaped rotating mechanism is arranged at a tail end of a bracket on which the lateral imaging probe is mounted, and drives a front end of the lateral imaging probe to perform fan-shaped rotation movement”. Paragraph 0092 discloses “In this embodiment, the position control module includes a mechanical apparatus that can move in parallel upward and downward and can drive the lateral imaging probe to move in parallel in an up-down direction, and a movement direction is parallel to the axis of the focused ultrasound transducer.” Paragraphs 0100-01 discloses “FIG. 7 shows another embodiment of a lateral imaging probe, a ranging module, and a position control module. In this embodiment, a tail end of the lateral imaging probe is mounted on the position control module, the position control module is mounted on the ranging module, the ranging module is mounted on a focused ultrasound transducer through a mechanical structure, and an axis of the lateral imaging probe always intersects with an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer. In this embodiment, the position control module includes a mechanical apparatus that can rotate in a fan shape and can drive the lateral imaging probe to move in a fan-shaped direction.”
“measuring a movement distance X of the lateral imaging probe along an axis of the lateral imaging probe through a ranging module” in claims 7 and 12: Paragraph 0013 discloses “Further, the ranging module includes a ranging processing unit and a capacitance-grid electronic rangefinder, and is configured to measure a distance from an intersection point of the axis of the focused ultrasound transducer and the axis of the lateral imaging probe to a foremost end surface of the lateral imaging probe, that is, the mapping depth of focus D, a distance compensation value is stored inside the ranging processor unit, and the distance compensation value is a distance between the axis of the focused ultrasound transducer and a front end surface of the lateral imaging probe when the lateral imaging probe is in an initial state.” Paragraph 0017 discloses “Based on the structural form, the ranging module further includes an angle sensor, and the angle sensor is configured to measure a deflection angle of the lateral imaging probe”.
“calculating temperature data TAn of the acquisition boundary An based on RFAn through a temperature measurement module” in claims 7 and 12: Paragraph 0021 discloses “Further, the temperature measurement module includes a temperature measurement processing unit, and the temperature measurement processing unit is electrically connected to the device and is configured to control the device.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “(Δa, Δb)”. While paragraph 0054 states that “Further, a boundary threshold added by the acquisition boundary is set as (Δa, Δb): where Δa is a threshold added in a length direction, Δb is a threshold added in a width direction” and paragraph 0095 recites “A boundary threshold added by the acquisition boundary is set as (Δa, Δb): where Δa is a threshold added in a length direction, Δb is a threshold added in a width direction”, the specification fails to disclose what the function is such that the output is present. Furthermore, the function does not even denote the output. Rather, the element merely recites two inputs. That is, the “function” is not discloses such that it defines the process of operating with the inputs or even what the output is. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 7 recites “(
L
+
Δ
a
,
W
0
+
Δ
b
)”. While paragraphs 0054 and 0095 states the “(
L
+
Δ
a
,
W
0
+
Δ
b
)”, the specification fails to disclose what the function is such that the output is present. Furthermore, the function does not even denote the output. Rather, the element merely recites two inputs. That is, the “function” is not discloses such that it defines the process of operating with the inputs or even what the output is. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 12 recites “(Δa, Δb)”. While paragraph 0054 states that “Further, a boundary threshold added by the acquisition boundary is set as (Δa, Δb): where Δa is a threshold added in a length direction, Δb is a threshold added in a width direction” and paragraph 0095 recites “A boundary threshold added by the acquisition boundary is set as (Δa, Δb): where Δa is a threshold added in a length direction, Δb is a threshold added in a width direction”, the specification fails to disclose what the function is such that the output is present. Furthermore, the function does not even denote the output. Rather, the element merely recites two inputs. That is, the “function” is not discloses such that it defines the process of operating with the inputs or even what the output is. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 12 recites “(
L
+
Δ
a
,
W
0
+
Δ
b
)”. While paragraphs 0054 and 0095 states the “(
L
+
Δ
a
,
W
0
+
Δ
b
)”, the specification fails to disclose what the function is such that the output is present. Furthermore, the function does not even denote the output. Rather, the element merely recites two inputs. That is, the “function” is not discloses such that it defines the process of operating with the inputs or even what the output is. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
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 7 and 12 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 7 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the focused ultrasound transducer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “selecting a temperature measurement ROI region: the temperature measurement ROI region is set as a cube symmetric with respect to the axis of the focused ultrasound transducer, wherein a height is denoted as H, a length is denoted as L, and a width is denoted as W”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what medium the selection is perform. One interpretation is that the claim element is establishing the determination of an anatomical region. Another interpretation is that the selection is based on the assessment of an image.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the ranging module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “a focused ultrasound transducer”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “focused ultrasound transducer” is the same as the “focused ultrasound transducer” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “axis of the focused ultrasound transducer” is the same as the “axis of the focused ultrasound transducer” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a lateral imaging probe”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “lateral imaging probe” is the same as the “lateral imaging probe” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a mapping region of the temperature measurement ROI region”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “mapping region of the temperature measurement ROI region” is the same as the “mapping region Sn of the nth scanning layer” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a mapping region of the temperature measurement ROI region”. This claim element is indefinite. The preceding claim element establishes a “mapping region Sn of the nth scanning layer”. However, the claim establishes that the scanning layers are scanned to “completely cover the temperature measurement ROI region”. It would be unclear, in the case that the mapping regions are separate and distinct, what the relationship is between these matching regions given that they are covering the temperature measurement ROI region.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a length is L”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “a length is L” is the same as the “a length is denoted as L” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Sn (L, W0)”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear which L is being referred to as the claim establishes to L elements that are not distinctly denoted.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “
W
0
=
W
cos
α
)”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim element contains an open-ended parenthetical. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the full scope of the equation is. The claim element has an incomplete equation where it is unclear what the parenthetical is containing and what is outside the parenthetical.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “
L
+
Δ
a
”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear which L is being referred to as the claim establishes to L elements that are not distinctly denoted.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a ranging module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “ranging module” is the same as the “ranging module” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the temperature measurement module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “a temperature measurement module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “temperature measurement module” is the same as the “temperature measurement module” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the foregoing calculation step”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art which calculations is being referred to as there are a series of preceding calculation steps. Additionally, the element is regarding “to obtain temperature data TSn+1”. The claim does not establish a calculation step with respect to temperature data TSn. Rather, the step for temperature data TSn of the mapping region Sn is a selection step
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the c groups”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “c groups”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “c groups” is the same as the “quantity c of scanning layers” established the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “selecting temperature data TSn of the mapping region Sn from TAn”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what the selection of temperature data provides as the reconstruction is based on the sequential scanning of the groups of the temperature data that is according to the claimed c groups.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “{TSi}”, “{tempT(x,y,z)}” and “{T(x,y,z)}”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the parenthetical is attempting to convey in relation to the claim as a whole.
Recites “the three-dimensional temperature distribution {tempT(x,y,z)}”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the scanning interlayer step value Δd”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the scanning interlayer step value Δd”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim establishes “a step value of upward and downward movement scanning of the lateral imaging probe is set as Δd” It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the Δd is representative of the scanning interlayer step value or the step value of upward and downward movement scanning of the lateral imaging probe. If they are the same, consistent claim language should be used throughout the claims.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the temperature distribution {T(x,y,z)}”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “c…, nth…, Sn…, An…, , RFAn…, TAn…, TSn…, TSn+1…, {TSi}…, {tempT(x,y,z)}…, and {T(x,y,z)}”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is attempting to establish open-ended limitations regarding the numerical amount or is attempting to establish a formulaic element with respect to an output that results in the value. If it is the later, it is further unclear what these elements are denoting with respect to the claim. If it is the former, it is further unclear what the scope of the claim is as there is no limitation set on the numerical amount.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
The claim as a whole is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the focused ultrasound transducer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the ranging module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the axis of the lateral imaging probe passes through a focus region of a focused ultrasound transducer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “a focused ultrasound transducer”. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “focused ultrasound transducer” is the same as the “focused ultrasound transducer” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Formula (5)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “Formula (5)”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim fails to establish formulae 1-4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the first 4 formulae are such that there is a fifth formula.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “
β
”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the
β
is referring to.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “
Δ
β
”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the determination for the
Δ
β
is and how it is ascertained. The claim establishes the determination of
β
in the preceding claim element. It is unclear if the claim is establishing these to be the same element or different elements.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Formula (6)”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim fails to establish formulae 1-4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the first 4 formulae are such that there is a sixth formula (claim establishes a fifth formula).
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a lateral imaging probe”. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “lateral imaging probe” is the same as the “lateral imaging probe” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the mapping region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “a same length L”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “same length L” is the same as the “a length is denoted as L” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the mapping region Sn is denoted as Sn(L, Wn)”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the mapping region is defined by Sn or defined by Sn(L, Wn). If is unclear what mathematical symbol defines the mapping region as the claim establishes two different features.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Sn (L, W0)”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear which L is being referred to as the claim establishes to L elements that are not distinctly denoted.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Formula (7)”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim fails to establish formulae 1-4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the first 4 formulae are such that there is a seventh formula (claim establishes a fifth and sixth formula).
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “
W
c
o
s
(
arctan
H
2
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
-
W
2
+
tan
α
+
Δ
β
)
ep5”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the “ep5” is. It would be further unclear if the symbol is “ep5” or “ep” and it is multiplied by 5. It is further unclear if it is multiplying to the equation to the left of the element or not.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Formula (3)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “Formula (3)”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if this formula precedes formulae 5-7 or is applied after. Additionally, it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the preceding two formulae are.
Recites “
L
+
Δ
a
”. This claim element is indefinite. It is unclear which L is being referred to as the claim establishes to L elements that are not distinctly denoted.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “Formula (8)”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim fails to establish formulae 1-2 and 4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the formulae 1-2 and 4 are such that there is a eighth formula (claim establishes a third, fifth, sixth, and seventh formula).
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “n”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the symbol “n” represents in the equation. The claim does not define the variable.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “
D
=
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
c
o
s
(
arctan
H
2
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
-
W
2
+
tan
α
-
n
Δ
β
)
-
P
L
+
X
selecting…”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the equation is as the claim does not provide a termination and rather continues into grammatical description. Applicant is encouraged to use proper mathematical convention to indicate the equation separate from any description.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “step 6”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim establishes the 6th step. The preceding step is step 4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the 5th step is between the 6th and 4th steps. If this is intended to be the 5th step, then it is unclear why it is been denoted as the 6th step.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the temperature measurement module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “step 9”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim establishes the 9th step. The preceding step is step 7. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the 8th step is between the 9th and 7th steps. If this is intended to be the 8th step, then it is unclear why it is been denoted as the 9th step.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a temperature measurement module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “temperature measurement module” is the same as the “temperature measurement module” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the foregoing calculation step”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art which calculations is being referred to as there are a series of preceding calculation steps. Additionally, the element is regarding “to obtain temperature data TSn+1”. The claim does not establish a calculation step with respect to temperature data TSn. Rather, the step for temperature data TSn of the mapping region Sn is a selection step.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “c groups”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “c groups” is the same as the “quantity c of scanning layers” established the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “selecting temperature data TSn of the mapping region Sn from TAn”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what the selection of temperature data provides as the reconstruction is based on the sequential scanning of the groups of the temperature data that is according to the claimed c groups.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “{TSi}”, “{tempT(x,y,z)}” and “{T(x,y,z)}”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the parenthetical is attempting to convey in relation to the claim as a whole.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the three-dimensional temperature distribution {tempT(x,y,z)}”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the scanning interlayer step value Δd”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the scanning interlayer step value Δd”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scanning interlayer step value is and what it is representative of.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the temperature distribution {T(x,y,z)}”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “c…, nth…, Sn…, An…, RFAn…, TAn…, TSn…, TSn+1…, {TSi}…, {tempT(x,y,z)}…, and {T(x,y,z)}”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is attempting to establish open-ended limitations regarding the numerical amount or is attempting to establish a formulaic element with respect to an output that results in the value. If it is the later, it is further unclear what these elements are denoting with respect to the claim. If it is the former, it is further unclear what the scope of the claim is as there is no limitation set on the numerical amount.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
The claim as a whole is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.
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 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 is 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 - The claims recite a method for implementing axial focal region temperature measurement distribution detection through a lateral imaging probe and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “step 1: selecting a temperature measurement ROI region: the temperature measurement ROI region is set as a cube symmetric with respect to the axis of the focused ultrasound transducer, wherein a height is denoted as H, a length is denoted as L, and a width is denoted as W; step 2: calculating a quantity c of scanning layers that need to be scanned to completely cover the temperature measurement ROI region: the ranging module is arranged at a zero position, and the axis of the lateral imaging probe passes through a focus of a focused ultrasound transducer, wherein a compensation distance from a front end surface of the lateral imaging probe to the focus is denoted as ΔD, and an angle between the axis of the lateral imaging probe and a vertical line of an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer is denoted as α; a step value of upward and downward movement scanning of the lateral imaging probe is set as Δd, and the quantity c of scanning layers is calculated according to Formula (1):
c
=
H
+
2
W
t
a
n
α
Δ
d
(1); step 4: calculating a mapping region Sn of the nth scanning layer: in a mapping region of the temperature measurement ROI region within a field of view of the lateral imaging probe, a mapping region of each layer has a same size, wherein a length is L, a width is W0, the mapping region Sn is denoted as Sn (L, W0), and W0 is calculated according to Formula (2):
W
0
=
W
cos
α
); step 5: calculating an acquisition boundary An of the nth scanning layer: wherein a boundary threshold added by the acquisition boundary is set as (Δa, Δb): wherein Δa is a threshold added in a length direction, Δb is a threshold added in a width direction, and the acquisition boundary An is calculated according to Formula (3);
A
n
=
S
n
+
Δ
a
,
Δ
b
=
(
L
+
Δ
a
,
W
0
+
Δ
b
)
(3); step 6: measuring a movement distance X of the lateral imaging probe along an axis of the lateral imaging probe through a ranging module; step 7: calculating a mapping depth of focus D of the temperature measurement ROI region: the depth of focus D is calculated according to Formula (4):
D
=
X
+
Δ
D
(4); step 8: selecting acquisition region radio frequency data RFAn from ultrasound radio frequency data of the lateral imaging probe based on D and An: an imaging ultrasound module selects the acquisition region radio frequency data RFAn from the ultrasound radio frequency data of the lateral imaging probe based on the depth of focus D and the acquisition boundary An, and transmits the acquisition region radio frequency data RFAn to the temperature measurement module; step 9: calculating temperature data TAn of the acquisition boundary An based on RFAn through a temperature measurement module; step 10: selecting temperature data TSn of the mapping region Sn from TAn; step 11: after measurement of temperature data of a current layer is completed, the temperature measurement module adjusts the lateral imaging probe to move to an (n+1)th scanning layer through the position control module, and performs the foregoing calculation step to obtain temperature data TSn+1; step 12: the three-dimensional temperature distribution {tempT(x,y,z)} is constructed through {TSi} according to the scanning interlayer step value Δd; and step 13: the temperature distribution {T(x,y,z)} of the temperature measurement ROI region is selected from {tempT(x,y,z)} based on the coordinates of the temperature measurement ROI region”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind or the implementation of a mathematical concept as it is regarding a concept relating to the selection of an ROI, calculation of a quantity of scanning layers according to a mathematical equation, the calculation of the mapping region according to a mathematical equation, the calculation of an acquisition boundary according to an mathematical equation, the measure of the movement distance of the probe, the calculation of a mapping depth according to a mathematical equation, the selection of an RF data, the calculation of a temperature data and selection of that temperature data for a series of scanning layers, and the construction of a temperature distribution according to the selected temperature measurements. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “step 3: moving a lateral imaging probe to an nth scanning layer through a position control module; scanning on the c layers is completed sequentially to obtain the c groups of temperature data {TSi}”. The movement of the probe to a scanning layer and the sequential scanning is a data gathering step which is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 12 is 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 - The claims recite a method for implementing axial focal region temperature measurement distribution detection through a lateral imaging probe and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “step 1: selecting a temperature measurement ROI region: the temperature measurement ROI region is set as a cube symmetric with respect to the axis of the focused ultrasound transducer, wherein a height is denoted as H, a length is denoted as L, and a width is denoted as W; step 2: calculating a quantity c of scanning layers that need to be scanned to completely cover the temperature measurement ROI region: the ranging module is arranged at a zero position, and the axis of the lateral imaging probe passes through a focus region of a focused ultrasound transducer, wherein a compensation distance from a front end surface of the lateral imaging probe to the focus is denoted as ΔD, and an angle between the axis of the lateral imaging probe and a vertical line of an axis of the focused ultrasound transducer is denoted as α; H1 is a vertical distance from the focus to an upper plane of the temperature measurement ROI region, H2 is a vertical distance from the focus to a lower plane of the temperature measurement ROI region, and a fan-shaped angle R required for covering the temperature measurement ROI region is calculated by Formula (5):
β
=
arctan
H
1
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
-
W
2
-
tan
α
+
a
r
c
t
a
n
(
H
2
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
-
W
2
+
tan
α
)
wherein PL is a length from a front end surface to a tail end of the lateral imaging probe; a step angle of fan-shaped scanning of the lateral imaging probe is set as A3, and the quantity c of scanning layers is calculated according to Formula (6):
c
=
[
β
Δ
β
]
(6); step 4: calculating a mapping region Sn of the nth scanning layer: in the temperature measurement ROI region within a field of view of the lateral imaging probe, the mapping region of each layer has a same length L and a different width, wherein the width of an nth layer is denoted as Wn, the mapping region Sn is denoted as Sn(L, Wn), and Wn is calculated according to Formula (7):
W
n
=
W
c
o
s
(
arctan
H
2
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
-
W
2
+
tan
α
+
Δ
β
)
ep5: calculating an acquisition boundary An of the nth scanning layer: a boundary threshold added by the acquisition boundary is set as (Δa, Δb): wherein Δa is a threshold added in a length direction, Δb is a threshold added in a width direction, and the acquisition boundary An is calculated according to Formula (3); an
A
n
=
S
n
+
Δ
a
,
Δ
b
=
(
L
+
Δ
a
,
W
0
+
Δ
b
)
(3); step 6: measuring a movement distance X of the lateral imaging probe along an axis of the lateral imaging probe through a ranging module; step 7: calculating a mapping depth of focus D of the temperature measurement ROI region: the depth of focus D is calculated according to Formula (8):
D
=
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
c
o
s
(
arctan
H
2
Δ
D
+
P
L
cos
α
-
W
2
+
tan
α
-
n
Δ
β
)
-
P
L
+
X
selecting acquisition region radio frequency RFAn from ultrasound radio frequency data of the lateral imaging probe based on D and An: an imaging ultrasound module then selects the acquisition region radio frequency data RFAn from the ultrasound radio frequency data of the lateral imaging probe based on the depth of focus D and the acquisition boundary An, and transmits the acquisition region radio frequency data RFAn to the temperature measurement module; step 9: calculating temperature data TAn of the acquisition boundary An based on RFAn through a temperature measurement module; step 10: selecting temperature data TSn of the mapping region Sn from TAn; step 11: after measurement of temperature data of a current layer is completed, the temperature measurement module adjusts the lateral imaging probe to move to an (n+1)th scanning layer through the position control module, and performs the foregoing calculation step to obtain temperature data TSn+1; step 12: the three-dimensional temperature distribution {tempT(x,y,z)} is constructed through {TS1} according to the scanning interlayer step value Δd; and step 13: the temperature distribution {T(x,y,z)} of the temperature measurement ROI region is selected from {tempT(x,y,z)} based on the coordinates of the temperature measurement ROI region”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind or the implementation of a mathematical concept as it is regarding a concept relating to the selection of an ROI region, the calculation of a quantity of scanning layers according to a mathematical equation, the calculation of a mapping region according to a mathematical equation, the calculation of an acquisition boundary according to a mathematical equation, the measuring of a movement distance, the calculation of a mapping depth according to a mathematical equation, the selection of an RF data, the calculation of a temperature data and selection of that temperature data for a series of scanning layers, and the construction of a temperature distribution according to the selected temperature measurements. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “step 3: moving a lateral imaging probe to an nth scanning layer through a position control module; scanning on the c scanning layers is completed sequentially to obtain c groups of temperature data {TS1}”. The movement of the probe to a scanning layer and the sequential scanning is a data gathering step which is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 12 is ineligible.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horizontal
2 Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vertical