Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/757,654

SYSTEMS, METHODS AND ELECTRODES FOR 4-DIMENSIONAL ULTRASOUND PULSE-ECHO IMAGING OF THE NECK AND UPPER AIRWAY

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 28, 2024
Examiner
REMALY, MARK DONALD
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Volumetrics Medical Systems LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
492 granted / 709 resolved
-0.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
733
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§103
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 709 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Election/Restrictions Claims 12-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method and computer implemented method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Newly added claims 21-29 are the mere embodiment of the method of Group II accompanied with a generic computer device, and are therefore correctly grouped with the computer method. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/17/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 2-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stribling (US PG Pub No. 2009/0259128, Published Oct. 15,2009) (hereinafter “Stribling”). Regarding claim 2, Stribling teach a system for imaging tissue, the system comprising: first and second ultrasound transducer arrays configured to secure to first and second surface locations, respectively, the first and second ultrasound transducer arrays being positioned in relation to tissue (see [0069]-[0071]); and a processor circuit operatively coupled to the first and second ultrasound transducer arrays, the processor circuit configured to operate the first and second ultrasound transducer arrays for pulse-echo imaging of the tissue, to generate respective first and second volumetric ultrasound image data sets in real-time to provide an integrated volumetric image of the tissue from the first and second surface locations (see [0072]). Regarding claim 3, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, wherein the first and second surface locations correspond to a first side and a second side of a neck, respectively, and the tissue comprises a soft tissue-airway interface for assessing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (see [0067], [0080]). Regarding claim 4, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, wherein the first volumetric ultrasound image data set includes pulse-echo image data that corresponds to a first portion of the tissue that is closest to the first ultrasound transducer array and is free of image data that corresponds to the tissue that is in a shadow of the first portion relative to the first ultrasound transducer array (see [0069]-[0071]); and wherein the second volumetric ultrasound image data set includes pulse-echo image data that corresponds to a second portion of the tissue that is closest to the second ultrasound transducer array and is free of image data that corresponds to the tissue that is in a shadow of the second portion relative to the second ultrasound transducer array (see [0069]-[0071]). Regarding claim 5, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, further comprising: additional ultrasound transducer arrays, spaced apart from the first and second ultrasound transducer arrays, the additional ultrasound transducer arrays configured to secure to other surface locations wherein each of the additional ultrasound transducer arrays is configured to transmit and receive ultrasound beams for pulse-echo imaging of the tissue from the other surface locations (see [0069]-[0071]). Regarding claim 6, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, wherein the first array of ultrasound transducers and the second array of ultrasound transducers are part of the same ultrasound imaging system (see [0069]-[0071]). Regarding claim 8, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, further comprising a registration system, wherein the registration system determines relative positions of the first and second ultrasound transducer arrays in three-dimensional space (see [0072]). Regarding claim 9, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, wherein the processor circuit is operatively coupled to at least one of an EEG, plethysmograph, electrocardiogram, electromyogram (EMG), electrooculogram (EOG), nasal thermistor airflow sensor, nasal pressure airflow sensor, inductance plethysmography belt, oxygen saturation (SaO2), surrogate marker of REM sleep, pulsatile arterial tomography (PAT signal), microphone for detection of snoring, real- time apnea detection device, or an actigraph (“The CPU 414 that captures the information received by the elements also has the capability of transmitting the information to a remote CPU 420 through traditional means such as the Internet, direct link connection, Network connection, wireless connection and the like.” see [0055). Regarding claim 10, Stribling teach the The system of Claim 2, further comprising a third ultrasound transducer array configured to secure to a third surface location, the third ultrasound transducer array being positioned in relation to the tissue, wherein the processor circuit is configured to operate the third ultrasound transducer array for pulse-echo imaging of the tissue, to generate a third volumetric ultrasound image data set, the processor circuit generates the integrated volumetric image of the tissue based on the first, second, and third volumetric ultrasound image data sets (see [0069]-[0070]). Regarding claim 11, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, wherein the first and second volumetric ultrasound image data sets are each generated in real-time with reference to a time interval, and wherein generating the integrated volumetric image comprises integrating the first and second volumetric ultrasound image data sets with reference to the time interval (see [0069]-[0074]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stribling (US PG Pub No. 2009/0259128, Published Oct. 15,2009) (hereinafter “Stribling”) in view of Wiley et al. (US PG Pub No. 2008/0281197 A1) (hereinafter “Wiley et al.). Regarding claim 7, Stribling teach the system of Claim 2, wherein the first ultrasound transducer array comprises an array of ultrasound transducers supported by a body member but fail to explicitly teach wherein the surface location is secured via an adhesive layer. However, Wiley et al. from the same field of endeavor do teach wherein the surface location is secured via an adhesive layer (see [0034]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the invention of claim 2 with the features of Wiley et al. for the benefit of fixatedly moving and positioning the surface of interest relative to the transducers. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK REMALY whose telephone number is (571)270-1491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MARK D REMALY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 28, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599361
ULTRASONIC IMAGING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588848
DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR MEASURING MAGNETIC FIELDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12549866
LIGHT FIELD CAPTURE, COMPRESSION, TRANSMISSION AND RECONSTRUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543940
ATHERECTOMY CATHETER DRIVE ASSEMBLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539086
METHOD, APPARATUS AND SYSTEM FOR FILTERING PULSE SIGNAL MOTION INTERFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+15.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 709 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month