DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on March 30, 2026 concerning application No. 18/760,795 filed on July 1, 2024.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 21-26 are currently pending.
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 03/30/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112a rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the specification discloses the limitations “move the acquisition plane in a direction defined by a different, second angle while the acquisition plane remains oriented at the same first angle; and control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire second ultrasound signals, wherein the second ultrasound signals comprise the acquisition plane oriented at the same first angle” of claim 1 and “control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire all of the plurality of imaging signals with the acquisition plane oriented at the same first angle” of claim 22, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant recites [0050] of the present applications specification as support for the limitations. Specifically emphasizing “the acquisition planes are at +45 degree and for each acquisition, the acquisition plane is moved orthogonal to the +45 degree plane, i.e., moves in the -45 degree plane”. However, this recitation of [0050] discloses the acquisition plane is in fact moved from a first angle of +45 degree to a second angle of -45 degree. Therefore, as the acquisition plane is moving from a first angle to a second angle, the orientation of the acquisition plane is also changing. For that reason, the acquisition plane orientation cannot remain at the first angle while the acquisition plane is moved to a second angle. Applicant may be referencing the fact that a first acquisition plane is stationary while a second acquisition plane is rotated from a first angle to a second angle, but that is not what is currently being claimed as the claims do not currently recite multiple acquisition planes as discussed in [0050] but instead only recite a singular acquisition plane. It is recommended applicant amend the claims to specifically recite a first acquisition plane and a second acquisition plane if applicant wants the claims to be interpreted as a first acquisition plane remaining stationary while a second acquisition plane is being rotated to a second angle. For at least these reasons, the 35 USC 112a rejection of the argued limitations recited above stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112b rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1, 8, and 23 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “move the acquisition plane in a direction defined by a different, second angle while the acquisition plane remains oriented at the same first angle” and “the second ultrasound signals comprise the acquisition plane oriented at the same first angle”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, col. 13, lines 37-48 and fig. 4 of Peszynski disclose obtaining several image planes (second ultrasound signals) over an elevational angular range (second angle) while maintaining the ultrasound lines (acquisition plane) oriented at a same azimuthal angular range (first angle) for each acquisition of an image plane. See fig. 4, where each image sector S-3 to S3 represents an ultrasound signal being acquired while the acquisition plane is oriented within the same azimuthal angular range (first angle). For at least these reasons Peszynski teaches the argues limitation recited above.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of new claims 24-26, examiner respectfully disagrees. See the rejection of claims 24-26 below for further explanation.
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 1-2, 7-9 and 21-26 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 1 recites the limitation “move the acquisition plane in a direction defined by a different, second angle while the acquisition plane remains oriented at the same first angle; and control the ultrasound assembly to acquire second ultrasound signals, wherein the second ultrasound signals comprise the acquisition plane oriented at the same first angle”, which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventor has possession of the limitation at the time the application was filed. The abstract of the present applications specification discloses receiving, “the first imaging signals associated with a first plane at the first angle, and the second imaging signals associated with a second plane at the second angle” and [0050] discloses the image plane is moved between a first angle and a second angle but nowhere in the specification could it be found that discloses moving the acquisition plane in a direction defined by a different second angle in order to obtain second ultrasound signals while the acquisition plane stays oriented at the same first angle. For at least these reasons the claim limitation is considered new.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire all of the plurality of imaging signals with the acquisition plane at the same first angle”, which is not described in the specification such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventor has possession of the limitation at the time the application was filed. Nowhere in the present applications specification could it be found that discloses maintaining the acquisition plane at the same first angle while acquiring all of the plurality of imaging signals. For at least these reasons the claim limitation is considered new.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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(s) 1-2, 7, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Peszynski et al. (US 6592520, as recited in applicant’s 07/01/2024 IDS, hereinafter Peszynski) in view of Salgo et al. (US 20030060710, as recited in applicant’s 07/01/2024 IDS, hereinafter Salgo).
Regarding claim 1, Peszynski teaches a system for intracardiac imaging (ultrasonic imaging system 10 in fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 5-10, “the invention relates to ultrasound device and methods for imaging internal portions of the human body, and more particularly…intracardiac imaging using catheters”), the system comprising:
an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter (imaging catheter 12 in fig. 1. Col. 1, lines 6-10 disclose the use of a catheter for intracardiac imaging. The abstract additionally discloses the system is an ultrasound system meaning the catheter used for intracardiac imaging is an intracardiac echocardiography catheter) comprising:
a flexible elongate member configured to be advanced through a blood vessel of a patient into a heart of the patient (col. 7, line 55-col. 8, line 2, “catheter 12 includes…a flexible region 34”. Col. 20, lines 23-33, “catheter 12 can be easily inserted into the vasculature and placed at a desired location”, therefore the catheter is configured to be advanced through a blood vessel into a heart),
an ultrasound imaging assembly mounted at a distal portion of the flexible elongate member (transducer array 42 in fig. 2A which is located at a distal portion of the flexible elongate member), and comprising an array of transducer elements (col. 8, lines 22-45 disclose the transducer array is an array of ultrasonic transducer elements), wherein the array of transducer elements is arranged in a rectangular shape comprising a long axis and a short axis (col. 21, line 61 – col. 22, line 12 discloses the array is a rectangular array, therefore the array of imaging elements. Fig. 13 A shows the array includes a long axis and a short axis); and
a processor (the electronic circuitry of the system in fig. 1 and the system shown in fig. 5(1)-5(5) represent the processor) configured to:
control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire a plurality of ultrasound signals while ICE catheter is positioned inside the patient (col. 6, lines 5-9, “The method also includes rotating, or oscillating over an angular range, the transducer array and acquiring ultrasound data over a multiplicity of the image planes”);
generate a three-dimensional (3D) image of the heart based on the plurality of ultrasound signals (col. 6, lines 5-9, “forming a selected tissue image of the tissue region based on the acquired ultrasound data”. col. 13, lines 29-30 disclose the acquired ultrasound data is three-dimensional); and
output the 3D image of the heart to a display in communication with the processor (col. 13, lines 32-36 disclose displaying the three-dimensional data on a display. The electronic circuitry of the system that performs the processing and sends the data to the display is considered the part of the processor in communication with the display),
wherein, to control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire the plurality of ultrasound signals, the processor is configured to:
control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire first ultrasound signals, wherein the first ultrasound signals comprise an acquisition plane orientated at a first angle (fig. 7 shows the first imaging signals are obtained at a first angle. col. 6, lines 5-9, further discloses “The method also includes rotating, or oscillating over an angular range, the transducer array and acquiring ultrasound data over a multiplicity of the image planes”);
move the acquisition plane in a direction defined by a different, second angle while the acquisition plane remains oriented at the same first angle (col. 13, lines 37-48 disclose moving the ultrasound lines (acquisition plane) over an elevational angular range (second angle) while maintaining the ultrasound lines oriented at an azimuthal angular range (first angle). see fig. 4); and
control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire second ultrasound signals, wherein the second ultrasound signals comprise the acquisition plane oriented at the same first angle (col. 13, lines 37-48 disclose obtaining several image planes (second ultrasound signals) over an elevational angular range while maintaining the ultrasound lines (acquisition plane) oriented at an azimuthal angular range. See fig. 4, where each image sector S-3 to S3 represents an ultrasound signal being acquired while the acquisition plane is oriented within the same azimuthal angular range (first angle)).
Peszynski does not specifically teach the first angle comprises a first oblique angle that does not extend along the long axis or along the short axis.
However,
Salgo in a similar field of endeavor teaches the first angle comprises a first oblique angle that does not extend along the long axis or along the short axis (fig. 2A recreated below shows the first plane 510 is at an oblique angle).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
430
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 modify the system of Peszynski to have the first angle comprise a first oblique angle that does not extend along the long axis or along the short axis in order to provide an optimal position for the image plane that improves diagnostic efficacy, as recognized by Salgo ([0038]).
Regarding claims 2, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Peszynski further teaches the second angle comprises a second oblique angle that does not extend along the long axis or along the short axis (fig. 7A shows the second angle is 30 degrees relative to the x-axis (axial direction) and is therefore oblique relative to the axial direction).
Regarding claim 7, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Salgo further teaches the first angle is + 45 degrees relative to the long axis and the second angle is -45 degrees relative to the long axis (fig. 2A recreated above shows the first plane 510 and the second plane 512 lie perpendicular to one another and the first plane is +45 degrees relative to the long axis and the second plane is -45 degrees relative to the long axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Peszynski in view of Salgo to have the first angle is + 45 degrees relative to the long axis and the second angle is -45 degrees relative to the long axis in order to provide an optimal position for the two planes so that the device can generate a volume image rapidly, as recognized by Salgo ([0039]).
Regarding claims 21, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Peszynski further teaches the 3D image comprises a volume image between the first angle and the second angle (col. 6, lines 5-9, “The method also includes rotating, or oscillating over an angular range, the transducer array and acquiring ultrasound data over a multiplicity of the image planes, and forming a selected tissue image of the tissue region based on the acquired ultrasound data”. The beginning and end of the angular range represent the first angle and second angle. col. 13, lines 29-30 disclose the acquired ultrasound data is three-dimensional, by being three-dimensional the image comprises a volume).
Regarding claims 22, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Peszynski further teaches the processor is configured to control the ultrasound imaging assembly to acquire all of the plurality of imaging signals with the acquisition plane oriented at the same first angle (col. 13, lines 37-48 disclose obtaining several image planes (ultrasound signals) over an elevational angular range while maintaining the ultrasound lines (acquisition plane) oriented at an azimuthal angular range. See fig. 4, where each image sector S-3 to S3 represents an ultrasound signal being acquired while the acquisition plane is oriented within the same azimuthal angular range (first angle)).
Regarding claims 23, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 22, as set forth above. Peszynski further teaches the processor is configured to move the acquisition plane in the direction defined by the second angle between each acquisition (col. 6, lines 5-9, “The method also includes rotating, or oscillating over an angular range, the transducer array and acquiring ultrasound data over a multiplicity of the image planes”, therefore the processor is configured to move the acquisition plane in the direction defined by the second angle between each acquisition).
Regarding claim 24, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Salgo further teaches the first angle is -45 degrees relative to the long axis and the second angle is +45 degrees relative to the long axis (fig. 2A recreated above shows the first plane 510 and the second plane 512 lie perpendicular to one another each at 45 degrees relative to the long axis. Figs. 5A-D of Salgo further shows the plane can be rotated in either the positive or negative direction, therefore the first angle is at -45 degrees and the second angle is at +45 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Peszynski in view of Salgo to have the first angle is -45 degrees relative to the long axis and the second angle is +45 degrees relative to the long axis in order to provide an optimal position for the two planes so that the device can generate a volume image rapidly, as recognized by Salgo ([0039]).
Regarding claim 25, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Salgo further teaches the second angle is orthogonal to the first angle (fig. 2A of Salgo above shows the second angle is orthogonal to the first angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Peszynski in view of Salgo to have the second angle be orthogonal to the first angle in order to provide an optimal position for the two planes so that the device can generate a volume image rapidly, as recognized by Salgo ([0039]).
Regarding claim 26, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Peszynski further teaches the 3D image is viewable from a first viewing direction defined by the first angle and a second viewing direction defined by the second angle (col. 13, lines 37-48 and fig. 4 shows the generated 3D image generated from each image plane is viewable from a first viewing direction in the azimuthal angular range (first angle) and a second viewing direction in the elevational angular range (second angle)),
wherein the first angle and the second angle are selected based on resolutions of the 3D image along the first viewing direction and along the second viewing direction (col. 6, lines 10-49 disclose the selectable location and orientation (angle) of the data volume is selected in order to improve the tissue imaging, thereby improving the resolution of the images. Therefore the first angle and second angle are selected based on a resolution of the 3D image).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peszynski in view of Salgo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20110071395, as recited in applicant’s 07/01/2024 IDS, hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 8, Peszynski in view of Salgo teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Peszynski in view of Salgo does not specifically teach the imaging assembly further comprises a micro-beamformer integrated circuit (IC) coupled to the array of transducer elements, wherein the micro-beamformer IC is configured to beamform the first imaging signals and the second imaging signals, and wherein the processor is configured to control the micro-beamformer to orient the acquisition plane to the first angle and move the acquisition plane in the direction defined by the second angle.
However,
Miller in a similar field of endeavor teaches the imaging assembly further comprises a micro-beamformer integrated circuit (IC) (fig. 5B shows transmit beamformer 200A and receive beamformer 200B connected to the array 42 which is located within the distal part 30) coupled to the array of transducer elements ([0070] “transducer array 42 is bonded to an array backing 60 and the individual transducer elements are connected to an integrated circuit 62”), wherein the micro-beamformer IC is configured to beamform the first imaging signals and the second imaging signals ([0084]-[0085] and [0089]-[0090] disclose the transmission/reception of signals to and from the projection views (first and second image plane). [0097] discloses the beamformer receives the ultrasound echoes and synthesizes the scan data), and wherein the processor is configured to control the micro-beamformer to orient the acquisition plane to the first angle and move the acquisition plane in the direction defined by the second angle (Abstract, “for each orientation of the transducer array, the transmit and receive beamformers acquire ultrasound data over an image plane of the examined tissue. col. 19, line 56-col. 20, line 22 further discloses when the yaw (angle) is changed the processor recalculates the views and generates new planes of scan lines, meaning the processor controls the beamformer to adjust the image planes to their respective angles in order to obtain the imaging planes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the imaging assembly further comprises a micro-beamformer integrated circuit (IC) coupled to the array of transducer elements, wherein the micro-beamformer IC is configured to beamform the first imaging signals and the second imaging signals, and wherein the processor is configured to control the micro-beamformer to orient the acquisition plane to the first angle and move the acquisition plane in the direction defined by the second angle of Miller to the system of Peszynski in view of Salgo to allow for the predictable results reducing the overall size of the device need to generate the images.
Regarding claim 9, Peszynski in view of Salgo and Miller teaches the system of claim 8, as set forth above. Miller further teaches the micro-beamformer IC includes a plurality of microchannels delay lines configured to apply a plurality of predetermined delays to beamform the first imaging signals and the second imaging signals ([0085] discloses each receive processor 220_i includes a delay line that delays the transducer signal and adds the delayed signal before sending the signal to a receive beamformer. [0097] discloses the beamformer receives the ultrasound echoes and synthesizes the scan data).
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights