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The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 29 December 2025.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 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) 1, 19-23, 25-27, & 31-32are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inglese et al. (WO 2018/149948 A1; hereinafter "Inglese").
With regards to Claim 1, Inglese discloses a rigid ultrasonic periodontal probe (ultrasound probe 200, 230, 24; see Inglese FIGS. 24-27; deformable part 248 may be replaced by a rigid part for other applications, i.e. support member 248 may be either rigid or deformable that can take almost any angular orientation; see Inglese pg. 41, lines 27-28) comprising:
a grip portion having a longitudinal axis (probe body 204, 232, 242; see Inglese FIGS. 24-27),
a support member comprising a part having a longitudinal axis different from the longitudinal axis of the grip portion (first probe head part 248; see FIGS. 26-27; since first probe head part 248 can be deformable capable of “any angular orientation” then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Inglese’s first probe head part 248 capable of achieving a longitudinal axis different from the longitudinal axis of the grip portion; see Inglese pg. 41, lines 23-25), and
an ultrasonic device fastened to the grip portion via the support member (second probe head part 250,262 are fixed or removably connected to first probe head part 248. i.e. fastened; see Inglese pg. 41, lines 18-19 & pg. 42, lines 9-10), the ultrasonic device having at least one transducer and an internal surface defining a cavity with the ultrasonic device, wherein the at least one transducer resides in the cavity (actuator 100 that rotates reflector 104 may be immersed in a coupling medium; see Inglese pg. 32, lines 21-22; and actuator 128 which can rotate the reflector 126 may be immersed in the coupling medium; see Inglese pg. 33, lines 5-9)
and is configured for emitting ultrasound signals within at least two emitting cones (Inglese FIG. 3 clearly illustrates a conical shaped beam) and for receiving corresponding echoed ultrasound signals, the at least two emitting cones extending in opposite directions with regard to a plane comprising the longitudinal axis of the grip portion to make measurements on one appropriate side of the ultrasonic device (Inglese FIG. 17 illustrates actuator 100 that rotates reflector 104 about axis A1 to rotate the beam cylindrically; Inglese FIGS. 18-20 illustrate actuator 128 which can rotate the reflector 126 about in various directions, see directional double arrows, including rotationally; see also Inglese pg. 32, lines 21-32 & pg. 33, lines 25-32; it should be appreciated that the at least two emitting cones does not preclude sequential acquisition, therefore Inglese’s rotating beam meets said limitation because during a full rotation, at least one opposing pair of acquisition cones is acquired),
and wherein the at least one transducer has an external surface and the cavity is filled with a coupling material, and the external surface of the at least one transducer is not in contact with the internal surface of the cavity (FIGS. 18-20 clearly illustrated transducer 124 not in contact with the internal surface of the housing/casing 120/140/150).
With regards to Claim 191, wherein the ultrasonic device is offset from the longitudinal axis of the grip portion (since first probe head part 248 of Inglese FIGS. 26-27 can be deformable capable of “any angular orientation” then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Inglese’s first probe head part 248 capable of achieving an offset between second probe head part 250,262 and probe body 242; regardless, FIGS. 26-27 clearly illustrate said offset).
With regards to Claim 2019, wherein the distance between the ultrasonic device and the longitudinal axis of the grip portion is within the range of zero to five centimeters (since first probe head part 248 of Inglese FIGS. 26-27 can be deformable capable of “any angular orientation” then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Inglese’s first probe head part 248 capable of achieving an offset between zero and five centimeters)..
With regards to Claim 211, wherein the support member comprises at least two parts, each of the at least two parts having a longitudinal axis different from the longitudinal axis of the grip portion (since first probe head part 248 of Inglese FIGS. 26-27 can be deformable capable of “any angular orientation” then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Inglese’s first probe head part 248 to having at least two parts having different longitudinal axes than that of the grip portion, i.e. probe body 242; more specifically, first probe head part 248 appears to be continuously deformable wherein each section have a distinct longitudinal axis regardless of how short they are and the first probe head part 248 has a plurality of parts).
With regards to Claim 2221, wherein the distance between the ultrasonic device and the longitudinal axis of the grip portion is zero (since first probe head part 248 of Inglese FIGS. 26-27 can be deformable capable of “any angular orientation” then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Inglese’s first probe head part 248 can be around to be substantially linear/straight, thus, having a zero offset from the longitudinal axis of the probe body 242; it should be appreciated that connecting part 246 is substantially co-linear with probe body 242 longitudinal axis and first probe head part 248 extends from the connecting part 246 at said longitudinal axis).
With regards to Claim 231, wherein the probe is configured so that an ultrasound signal is emitted within a single emitting cone of the at least two emitting cones at a time (Inglese FIG. 17 illustrates actuator 100 that rotates reflector 104 about axis A1 to rotate the beam cylindrically; Inglese FIGS. 18-20 illustrate actuator 128 which can rotate the reflector 126 about in various directions, see directional double arrows, including rotationally; see also Inglese pg. 32, lines 21-32 & pg. 33, lines 25-32; since both embodiments disclose a rotating reflector 104,126 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the conical shaped beam of FIG. 3 would be emitted in only one direction at a time).
With regards to Claim 251, wherein the probe further comprises a moving element, the moving element being configured for enabling the ultrasonic device to emit ultrasound signals within at least each of the at least two emitting cones (Inglese FIG. 17 illustrates actuator 100 that rotates reflector 104 about axis A1 to rotate the beam cylindrically; Inglese FIGS. 18-20 illustrate actuator 128 which can rotate the reflector 126 about in various directions, see directional double arrows, including rotationally; see also Inglese pg. 32, lines 21-32 & pg. 33, lines 25-32; since both embodiments disclose a rotating reflector 104,126 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the conical shaped beam of FIG. 3 would be emitted in only one direction at a time)..
With regards to Claim 2625, wherein the moving element comprises a moving transducer or array of transducers and/or comprises a moving deflector for redirecting an ultrasound signal received from a transducer or array of transducers and for redirecting an ultrasound signal to the transducer or array of transducer (Inglese FIG. 17 illustrates actuator 100 that rotates reflector 104 about axis A1 to rotate the beam cylindrically; Inglese FIGS. 18-20 illustrate actuator 128 which can rotate the reflector 126 about in various directions, see directional double arrows, including rotationally; see also Inglese pg. 32, lines 21-32 & pg. 33, lines 25-32; since both embodiments disclose a rotating reflector 104,126 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the conical shaped beam of FIG. 3 would be emitted in only one direction at a time).
With regards to Claim 2726, wherein the moving element moves in a cavity filled with a coupling material (actuator 100 that rotates reflector 104 may be immersed in a coupling medium; see Inglese pg. 32, lines 21-22; and actuator 128 which can rotate the reflector 126 may be immersed in the coupling medium; see Inglese pg. 33, lines 5-9).
With regards to Claim 311, wherein the support member is configured for fastening the ultrasonic device to the grip portion and is temporarily deformable for enabling the distance between the ultrasonic device and the longitudinal axis of the grip portion to be adjusted, the support member being rigid after adjustment (first probe head part 248 may be deformable that can take almost any angular orientation; see Inglese pg. 41, lines 27-28 & FIGS. 26-27; since first probe head part 248 can be deformable capable of “any angular orientation” then one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Inglese’s first probe head part 248 capable of enabling the distance between the ultrasonic device and the longitudinal axis of the grip portion to be adjusted, the support member being rigid after adjustment).
With regards to Claim 321, wherein the probe further comprises a communication interface for transmitting data representing ultrasound signals received by the ultrasonic device to a remote device, a processing means for processing ultrasound signals received by the ultrasonic device (transmitting unit TR may be connected to a remote device for transmitting a reconstructed ultrasound image or ultrasound data; see Inglese pg. 20, lines 1-16), and/or a motion sensor, an orientation sensor, and/or a position sensor for determining at least one of a position, an orientation, a speed, a motion direction, and an acceleration of the probe (the probe member may also comprise an accelerometer, gyroscope, or a position sensor for recording spatial position; see Inglese pg. 19, lines 7-14 ).
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 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.
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.
Claims 24 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglese in view of Zhang et al. (US PAT 10799210 B1; hereinafter "Zhang") .
With regards to Claim 241, while Inglese teaches that “different ultrasound transducer and ultrasound transducer system configurations may be envisaged in any of the above embodiments,” (see Inglese pg. 25, lines 25-27), it appears that Inglese may be silent to wherein the ultrasonic device comprises at least two transducers or arrays of transducers, one of the at least two transducers or arrays of transducers being configured for emitting ultrasound signals within one of the at least two emitting cones and the other of the at least two transducers or arrays of transducers being configured for emitting ultrasound signals within the other of the at least two emitting cones.
However, Zhang similarly teaches of intraoral ultrasound scanning probe 52 (see Zhang FIGS. 10-11 & col. 8, lines 63-67 to col. 9, lines 1-12). In particular, Zhang teaches of wherein the ultrasonic device comprises at least two transducers or arrays of transducers (the side panels 104,106 includes one or more ultrasound arrays 74; see Zhang FIG. 11 & col. 8, lines 63-67 to col. 9, lines 1-12), one of the at least two transducers or arrays of transducers being configured for emitting ultrasound signals within one of the at least two emitting cones and the other of the at least two transducers or arrays of transducers being configured for emitting ultrasound signals within the other of the at least two emitting cones (See Zhang FIG. 11 which clearly illustrates the side panels 104,106 facing different directions).
Zhang also teaches the following: a button 60 b for controlling optical and ultrasonic scanning; see Zhang col. 6, lines 1-6; furthermore, Zhang FIG. 13 illustrates ultrasound control pane 218 that allows a user to adjust the brightness, contrast, and depth of the ultrasound (see Zhang col. 10, lines 48-50)
Inglese and Zhang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of periodontal ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inglese to incorporate the teachings of Zhang as indicated directly above. Doing so would aid in “scanning or imaging opposing sides of a tooth… scan the surfaces of multiple teeth simultaneously,” (see Zhang col. 8, lines 51-62).
With regards to Claim 281, wherein the probe further comprises a selector (a button 60 b for controlling optical and ultrasonic scanning; see Zhang col. 6, lines 1-6; furthermore, Zhang FIG. 13 illustrates ultrasound control pane 218 that allows a user to adjust the brightness, contrast, and depth of the ultrasound; see Zhang col. 10, lines 48-50) for selecting one of the at least two emitting cones for emitting an ultrasound signal (a user interface face “for modifying operating or setting parameters thereof, as gain, on/off, data acquisition, focus position, ultrasound frequency, scanning range (line density), scanning speed, etc.”; see Inglese pg. 20, lines 19-26; it should be appreciated that setting the scanning range and/or scanning speed amounts to selecting one of the at least two emitting cones for emitting an ultrasound signal) (claimed in the alternative).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inglese in view of EPIQ 7 Ultrasound System User Manual Release 1.0 (Copyright 2013, retrieved from < https://usme.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/epiq_7.pdf> on 5 March 2026; hereinafter "Epiq")
While, Inglese discloses of reconstructing 3D images which characteristically requires directional information for accurate reconstruction, neither teach of an indicated on the probe itself which provides an item of information regarding a direction to which the ultrasound signals are emitted (see Inglese pg. 15, lines 21-24), it appears that Inglese may be silent to further comprising an indicator, the indicator providing an item of information regarding a direction according to which ultrasound signals are emitted or will be emitted for generating images. However, EPIQ teaches of a TTE probe with a dial having an indicator which indicates the direction of rotation between 0◦ and 180◦ (see EPIC pg. 221).
Inglese and Epiq are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound probes . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inglese to incorporate the above teachings of Epiq to provide at least an indicator providing an item of information regarding a direction according to which ultrasound signals are emitted or will be emitted for generating images. Doing so would aid in improving useability by providing current scanning direction within visual proximity of the users hands.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to Claim 30, only Courtney et al. and Erkamp et al. teach of in vivo ultrasonic energy harvesting, but not for energizing a light emitting device. More specifically, Courtney et al. teaches of utilizing ultrasonic beacons on a secondary probe that are powered by harvesting energy from, among other sources, ultrasound energy. Similarly, Erkamp et al. teaches of an ultrasound probe with an RFID chip that is powered by ultrasound energy harvesting. Said RFID chip then transmits RF signals from which the probe tip is localized. However, neither Courtney et al. nor Erkamp et al. teach of harvesting energy to energize lights.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant contends that the newly amended claims amendments are not anticipated by Inglese. However, Applicant has failed to specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references and, therefore, said arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention. For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Moreover, the Office respectfully disagrees. As laid out with respect to newly amended Claim 1, Inglese clearly anticipates the fluid filled cavity and a transducer spaced from an internal surface of said cavity. For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Culjat et al. (US PGPUB 20130060144) – 3D reconstruction;
- Mormann et al. (US PGPUB 20170119505) - 3D reconstruction; and
- Maev et al. (US PGPUB 20100227295) – 3D reconstruction;
- Erkamp et al. (US PGPUB 20200008775) - in vivo ultrasonic energy harvesting for tracking; and
- Courtney et al. (US PGPUB 20160045184) - in vivo ultrasonic energy harvesting for tracking.
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 ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (CST).
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 M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798