DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 2, 6-8, 15, and 17-19 have been canceled, and new claims 21-26 have been added. Claims 1, 3-5, 9-14, 16, and 20-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the transducers” should be corrected to:
“the first and second ultrasound transducers”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the first one of the planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces at least one of the planar surfaces are not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed”
should be rewritten as:
“wherein at least one of the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces or the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces is not parallel to a longitudinal axis of the transducer bed”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the first one of the planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces at least one of the planar surfaces is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed”
should be written as:
“wherein at least one of the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces or the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces is not parallel to a longitudinal axis of the transducer bed”
Claims 24 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising” should be corrected to:
“further comprising”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites wherein a first planar surface is offset from a second planar surface by some degrees “in a viewing plane”. Moreover, claim 3 recites “wherein the viewing plane is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the transducer bed”. In figures 3 and 5-10 of Applicant’s drawings, the transducers appear offset from each other in a viewing plane, the plane in which the transducers are drawn/viewed in. However, this viewing plane is not perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed. Rather, the longitudinal axis fits entirely within the viewing plane. It is unclear how the planar surfaces are offset from each other in the viewing plane while the viewing plane is also perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted for viewing plane to not require to be perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bielewics (US20090292199).
Regarding claim 1, Bielewics teaches an imaging head for an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) catheter (642) (Fig. 41C, [0009], wherein catheter may be an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter, [0011], wherein catheter may be positioned within a vessel or vascular passageway, [0283-0284]), comprising:
a transducer bed (632) comprising a plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 41C, [0281], [0283]);
a first ultrasound transducer (630) disposed on a first one of the plurality of planar surfaces (632) (Fig. 41C, [0281], [0283]); and
a second ultrasound transducer (650) disposed on a second one of the plurality of planar surfaces (632) (Fig. 41C, [0284]),
wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are disposed on the same side of the transducer bed (632) (Fig. 41C), and
wherein the transducers (630, 650) are angled away from each other (Fig. 41C, [0282-0284], wherein first ultrasound imaging array 630 is pivoted at an angle into a forward-looking direction and second ultrasound imaging array 650 is pivoted the same angle away into a rearward-looking direction as shown in figure 41C).
Claims 4-5, 9, 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore (US20100152590).
Regarding claim 4, Moore teaches an imaging head (90) for an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) catheter (Fig. 16, [0007-0008], wherein intracardiac use comprises intravascular, [0099]), comprising:
a transducer bed comprising a plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 16, [0099-0100], “The transducer arrays are positioned back-to-back… Back-to-back transducers can also share a common backing material”);
a first ultrasound transducer (920) disposed on a first one of the plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 16, [0099]); and
a second ultrasound transducer (930) disposed on a second one of the plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 16, [0099]);
wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are disposed on opposite sides of the transducer bed (Fig. 16, wherein figure 16 shows the planar surfaces of the backing material are disposed on opposite sides), and
wherein the first one of the planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces at least one of the planar surfaces are not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed (Fig. 16, wherein figure 16 shows both planar surfaces are angled in such a way they are not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed or backing material).
Regarding claim 5, Moore teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 4.
Moore further teaches wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are radially offset from each other between 170 and 190 degrees (Figs. 16 & 17A-17C, [0100], “The transducer arrays are positioned back-to-back”, [0101-0102], wherein the imaging core rotating 180 degrees so that each transducer array fires in the same direction implies the transducer arrays 920, 930 and thus their respective planar surfaces being radially offset 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 9, Moore teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 5.
Moore further teaches wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are radially offset from each other by 180 degrees (Figs. 16 & 17A-17C, [0100], “The transducer arrays are positioned back-to-back”, [0101-0102], wherein the imaging core rotating 180 degrees so that each transducer array fires in the same direction implies the transducer arrays 920, 930 and thus their respective planar surfaces being radially offset 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 16, Moore teaches an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) catheter (Fig. 16, Claims 1-2, [0007-0008], wherein intracardiac use comprises intravascular, [0099]), comprising:
a catheter sheath (3) (Fig. 2, [0046-0047]);
a drive cable (990; 2604) configured to be coupled to a motor drive unit (2502) (Fig. 16, [0068], “The rotational motor 2502 enables continuous rotation of the ultrasound imaging core”, [0076], [0099]); and
an imaging core (90; 900) coupled to the drive cable (990) (Fig. 16, [0099]), the imaging core (90; 900) comprising:
a transducer bed comprising a plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 16, [0099-0100], “The transducer arrays are positioned back-to-back… Back-to-back transducers can also share a common backing material”);
a first ultrasound transducer (920) disposed on a first one of the plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 16, [0099]); and
a second ultrasound transducer (930) disposed on a second one of the plurality of planar surfaces (Fig. 16, [0099]),
wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are disposed on opposite sides of the transducer bed (Fig. 16, wherein figure 16 shows the planar surfaces of the backing material are disposed on opposite sides), and
wherein the first one of the planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces at least one of the planar surfaces is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed (Fig. 16, wherein figure 16 shows both planar surfaces are angled in such a way they are not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the transducer bed or backing material).
Regarding claim 20, Moore teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 16.
Moore further teaches wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are radially offset from each other between 170 and 190 degrees (Figs. 16 & 17A-17C, [0100], “The transducer arrays are positioned back-to-back”, [0101-0102], wherein the imaging core rotating 180 degrees so that each transducer array fires in the same direction implies the transducer arrays 920, 930 and thus their respective planar surfaces being radially offset 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 21, Moore teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 20.
Moore further teaches wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are radially offset from each other by 180 degrees (Figs. 16 & 17A-17C, [0100], “The transducer arrays are positioned back-to-back”, [0101-0102], wherein the imaging core rotating 180 degrees so that each transducer array fires in the same direction implies the transducer arrays 920, 930 and thus their respective planar surfaces being radially offset 180 degrees).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielewics (US20090292199).
Regarding claim 3, Bielewics teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
Bielewics further teaches wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are offset from each other by greater than 0 degrees in a viewing plane, wherein the viewing plane is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (646) of the transducer bed (632) (Fig. 41C, wherein the viewing plane comprises the plane in which figure 41C is drawn).
However, Bielewics fails to explicitly teach wherein the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are offset from each other less than or equal to 20 degrees in the viewing plane.
While Bielewics fails to teach such a feature, it would have still been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bielewics to have the planar surfaces be offset from each other less than or equal to 20 degrees in the viewing plane. Bielewics teaches two ultrasound imaging transducers (630, 650) that are offset from each other at some nondisclosed angle such that one imaging transducer (630) is partially forward-looking and the other imaging transducer (650) is partially rearward-looking (Fig. 41C, [0282], [0284]). Bielewics thus teaches a device that is structurally similar to the claimed invention except for an offset parameter. The amount of the angular offset between the two ultrasound imaging transducers determines the extent of how forward-looking and backward-looking the respective ultrasound imaging transducers are. Therefore, the offset parameter is a result-effective variable. By having an offset less than or equal to 20, the ultrasound imaging transducers may be more forward- and backward-looking, allowing for more information to be captured in front of and behind the catheter. Therefore, the claimed offset being less than or equal to 20 is merely an optimum or workable range which an ordinarily skilled artisan may arrive at through routine experimentation or optimization, optimizing for an ultrasound imaging view. There is no evidence disclosed that the offset being less than or equal to 20 is critically important or yields unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.05 (II), “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995).
Claims 10-14 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US20100152590) in view of Raleigh (US20110237940).
Regarding claim 10, Moore teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 4.
However, Moore fails to teach the invention further comprising: a third ultrasound transducer disposed on a third one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches the array manifold (426), i.e. transducer bed, is double beveled to provide some transducers with a forward facing view (Fig. 4G, [0112], wherein a beveled surface comprises a planar surface). Figure 4G of Raleigh shows four surfaces comprising a top surface, bottom surface, top bevel, and bottom bevel.
Raleigh therefore teaches at least a third and fourth ultrasound transducer disposed on a third and fourth one of a plurality of surfaces respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to create a double bevel and dispose a third and/or fourth ultrasound transducer on the beveled surfaces as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). By disposing additional ultrasound transducers on a beveled surface, the additional ultrasound transducers may provide for a forward facing view as recognized by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). The modification of Moore with the teachings of Raleigh to create a double beveled surface for mounting a transducer thereon would predictably result wherein a third ultrasound is disposed on a third one of a plurality of planar surfaces (a beveled surface).
Regarding claim 11, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 10.
However, Moore fails to teach wherein the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces is disposed on the same side of the transducer bed from the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches wherein a third ultrasound transducer (428) may be disposed on a third one of a plurality of planar surfaces that is on a same side of a transducer bed (426) on which a first ultrasound transducer (428) is disposed on (Fig. 4G, [0112], wherein beveling the transducer bed or array manifold 426 produces a beveled surface that is planar). As shown below in figure 4G, the “third surface” and “first surface” are both disposed on a top side of a transducer bed (426).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to have a beveled surface on which the third ultrasound transducer is disposed on be on a same side of the first surface as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Having two ultrasound imaging transducers be positioned on a same side may predictably allow for a greater field of view in a scan plane on that side.
Regarding claim 12, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 10.
However, Moore fails to teach the invention further comprising a fourth ultrasound transducer disposed on a fourth one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches the array manifold (426), i.e. transducer bed, is double beveled to provide some transducers with a forward facing view (Fig. 4G, [0112], wherein a beveled surface comprises a planar surface). Figure 4G of Raleigh shows four surfaces comprising a top surface, bottom surface, top bevel, and bottom bevel; figure 4G is reproduced below for clarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Raleigh therefore teaches at least a fourth ultrasound transducer disposed on a fourth one of a plurality of surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to create a double bevel and further dispose a fourth ultrasound transducer on a beveled surface as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). By disposing additional ultrasound transducers on beveled surfaces, the additional ultrasound transducers may provide for a forward facing view as recognized by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Moreover, by providing a fourth ultrasound transducer above the third transducer and adjacent the first transducer, the field of view provided may be further expanded on the top side of the catheter. The modification of Moore with the teachings of Raleigh to create a double beveled surface for mounting two transducers thereon would predictably result wherein a fourth ultrasound is disposed on a fourth one of a plurality of planar surfaces (top beveled surface).
Regarding claim 13, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 12.
However, Moore fails to teach wherein the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are disposed on an opposite side of the transducer bed from the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the fourth one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As depicted in the annotated figure 4G below, the third and second surfaces are disposed on an opposite side of the transducer bed (426) from the first and fourth surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to have the first and fourth surfaces be on an opposite side of the third and second surfaces on which the ultrasound transducers are disposed as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). By having the surfaces and thus transducers be arranged in such a manner, a calibrated or composite ultrasound image may be generated in which distortions may be corrected as recognized by Raleigh ([0018], [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 10.
However, Moore fails to explicitly teach the invention further comprising an ultrasound receiver disposed on the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches wherein the ultrasound transducers are configured to both transmit and receive ultrasound waves (Claim 2, [0054], [0068], [0071], [0077]). Raleigh therefore teaches wherein each ultrasound imaging transducer is configured to transmit and receive ultrasound. Thus Raleigh further teaches wherein a third ultrasound transducer disposed on a third one of a plurality of surfaces comprises an ultrasound receiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to have each ultrasound transducer be configured to receive ultrasound waves and thus comprise an ultrasound receiver as taught by Raleigh (Claim 2, Fig. 4G, [0054], [0068], [0071], [0077], [0112]). Having the ultrasound imaging transducers be configured to receive ultrasound would predictably allow the transducers to convert the ultrasound waves into electrical signals for the production of images as recognized by Raleigh (Claim 2, [0071]). Modifying Moore with the teachings of Raleigh would predictably result in each ultrasound transducer comprising an ultrasound receiver and thus wherein an ultrasound receiver is disposed on the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
Regarding claim 22, Moore teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 16.
However, Moore fails to teach the invention further comprising a third ultrasound transducer disposed on a third one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches the array manifold (426), i.e. transducer bed, is double beveled to provide some transducers with a forward facing view (Fig. 4G, [0112], wherein a beveled surface comprises a planar surface). Figure 4G of Raleigh shows four surfaces comprising a top surface, bottom surface, top bevel, and bottom bevel.
Raleigh therefore teaches at least a third and fourth ultrasound transducer disposed on a third and fourth one of a plurality of surfaces respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to create a double bevel and dispose a third and/or fourth ultrasound transducer on the beveled surfaces as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). By disposing additional ultrasound transducers on a beveled surface, the additional ultrasound transducers may provide for a forward facing view as recognized by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). The modification of Moore with the teachings of Raleigh to create a double beveled surface for mounting a transducer thereon would predictably result wherein a third ultrasound is disposed on a third one of a plurality of planar surfaces (a beveled surface).
Regarding claim 23, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 22.
However, Moore fails to teach wherein the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces is disposed on the same side of the transducer bed from the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches wherein a third ultrasound transducer (428) may be disposed on a third one of a plurality of planar surfaces that is on a same side of a transducer bed (426) on which a first ultrasound transducer (428) is disposed on (Fig. 4G, [0112], wherein beveling the transducer bed or array manifold 426 produces a beveled surface that is planar). As shown below in figure 4G, the “third surface” and “first surface” are both disposed on a top side of a transducer bed (426).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to have a beveled surface on which the third ultrasound transducer is disposed on be on a same side of the first surface as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Having two ultrasound imaging transducers be positioned on a same side may predictably allow for a greater field of view in a scan plane on that side.
Regarding claim 24, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 22.
However, Moore fails to teach the invention further comprising a fourth ultrasound transducer disposed on a fourth one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches the array manifold (426), i.e. transducer bed, is double beveled to provide some transducers with a forward facing view (Fig. 4G, [0112], wherein a beveled surface comprises a planar surface). Figure 4G of Raleigh shows four surfaces comprising a top surface, bottom surface, top bevel, and bottom bevel; figure 4G is reproduced below for clarity.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Raleigh therefore teaches at least a fourth ultrasound transducer disposed on a fourth one of a plurality of surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to create a double bevel and further dispose a fourth ultrasound transducer on a beveled surface as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). By disposing additional ultrasound transducers on beveled surfaces, the additional ultrasound transducers may provide for a forward facing view as recognized by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Moreover, by providing a fourth ultrasound transducer above the third transducer and adjacent the first transducer, the field of view provided may be further expanded on the top side of the catheter. The modification of Moore with the teachings of Raleigh to create a double beveled surface for mounting two transducers thereon would predictably result wherein a fourth ultrasound is disposed on a fourth one of a plurality of planar surfaces (top beveled surface).
Regarding claim 25, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 24.
However, Moore fails to teach wherein the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the second one of the plurality of planar surfaces are disposed on an opposite side of the transducer bed from the first one of the plurality of planar surfaces and the fourth one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As depicted in the annotated figure 4G below, the third and second surfaces are disposed on an opposite side of the transducer bed (426) from the first and fourth surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
424
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to have the first and fourth surfaces be on an opposite side of the third and second surfaces on which the ultrasound transducers are disposed as taught by Raleigh (Fig. 4G, [0112]). By having the surfaces and thus transducers be arranged in such a manner, a calibrated or composite ultrasound image may be generated in which distortions may be corrected as recognized by Raleigh ([0018], [0069]).
Regarding claim 26, Moore in view of Raleigh teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 22.
However, Moore fails to teach the invention comprising an ultrasound receiver disposed on the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Raleigh teaches such a feature. Raleigh teaches an ultrasound imaging catheter configured for intravascular insertion ([0027], [0032-0034], [0078]). Raleigh teaches a catheter (108) may include an imaging system (100) mounted thereon (Fig. 1A, [0076], [0078]). Raleigh teaches an embodiment in which an imaging system (424) is configured to hold a plurality of ultrasound transducers (428) (Fig. 4G, [0112]). As shown in figure 4G of Raleigh, there exists a total of four ultrasound transducers (428) each disposed on separate surfaces (Fig. 4G, [0112]). Raleigh teaches wherein the ultrasound transducers are configured to both transmit and receive ultrasound waves (Claim 2, [0054], [0068], [0071], [0077]). Raleigh therefore teaches wherein each ultrasound imaging transducer is configured to transmit and receive ultrasound. Thus Raleigh further teaches wherein a third ultrasound transducer disposed on a third one of a plurality of surfaces comprises an ultrasound receiver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Moore to have each ultrasound transducer be configured to receive ultrasound waves and thus comprise an ultrasound receiver as taught by Raleigh (Claim 2, Fig. 4G, [0054], [0068], [0071], [0077], [0112]). Having the ultrasound imaging transducers be configured to receive ultrasound would predictably allow the transducers to convert the ultrasound waves into electrical signals for the production of images as recognized by Raleigh (Claim 2, [0071]). Modifying Moore with the teachings of Raleigh would predictably result in each ultrasound transducer comprising an ultrasound receiver and thus wherein an ultrasound receiver is disposed on the third one of the plurality of planar surfaces.
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 TOMMY T LY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6404. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00pm-8:00pm eastern time.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/TOMMY T LY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
11/29/2025